The MoJ Responds 2

Providers and Working Relationships 

We recommend that from 1 February 2019 the Ministry of Justice should publish information on probation supply chains for each CRC area and NPS region on a quarterly basis. This should include information on all sub-contractors (not just those in the voluntary sector) and the monetary value of the sub-contracts. (Paragraph 100) 

We do not accept this recommendation. Under Schedule 4 of the Amended and Restated Services Agreement we cannot publish information which has supplier information included, without their permission, as it is commercially sensitive. 

However, we are working with providers to seek agreement to publish sub-contractor lists on a quarterly basis and improve transparency in this respect. The Ministry will require agreement from both the Parent Organisations and Sub-Contractors themselves for this information to be published. 

We will monitor the health of CRC supply chains by requiring confirmation that payments due to supply chain partners are made in line with contractual obligations. 

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should consider, in response to this Report, what benefits might be gained from reintroducing targets for each Community Rehabilitation Company on the proportion of its budget which should be spent on voluntary sector provision, and whether involving some of the smaller, more specialised voluntary sector organisations could be incentivised. (Paragraph 102) 

Given their shortened lifespan we do not intend to introduce new requirements or targets for Community Rehabilitation Companies. 

In future arrangements we want to see a much clearer role for a wide range of voluntary sector providers in probation delivery, including local and specialist services. Throughout the consultation we were told that we needed to consider how to create the right environment to enable these organisations to deliver resettlement and rehabilitation services. To make the most of the range of providers available, we believe that these interventions should be commissioned and delivered locally where possible. 

We have developed an approach to support the direct participation of smaller voluntary sector providers in the delivery of resettlement and rehabilitation activities. This will be through the procurement of a dynamic framework across England and Wales. The dynamic framework will operate as an open panel of suppliers, who can be admitted to the panel at any point during its lifetime subject to a qualification process (based on experience and capabilities). 

By 1 February 2019, the Ministry of Justice should review the ISPA, with a view to reducing its length and complexity. The Ministry should write to the Committee after that review to set out the changes that it has made. (Paragraph 106) 

We received significant feedback on the ISPA in the responses to the consultation and continue to review how we best ensure the contract meets the needs of the supply chain. The MoJ is committed to ensuring voluntary sector participation in procurement. 

We recommend that the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies should be required to provide the Ministry of Justice with workforce data on a quarterly basis. This should include information on the recruitment and retention rates for Probation Officers and other case managers by grade, and total workforce numbers by NPS area and CRC. This data should be published by the Ministry as part of its quarterly statistics. (Paragraph 116) 

As of October 2018, workforce data – including information on recruitment and retention – is collected from CRCs as well as the NPS. The CRC providers are the owners of this information, and given it is commercially sensitive, publication is not possible. 

However, the Ministry is utilising this information to support whole-system probation workforce planning and the design of future contracts. In addition, we are investigating whether this information can be shared publicly. 

We recommend that from 2019 all providers, both CRCs and the NPS, should be required to use the same, or a similar, staff survey each year. Results of those staff surveys should be published for the seven NPS areas and the 21 CRCs. (Paragraph 119). 

In future, all offender management will be delivered by NPS staff, who are civil servants. They will therefore be subject to the wider Government staff survey.

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should publish a probation workforce strategy, which covers both staff working in the NPS and CRCs, in the next 12 months. As a minimum, the strategy should set out the Ministry’s expectations with regard to professional standards, training, maximum caseloads/workloads for probation staff. This strategy should be developed in consultation with the trade unions and HM Inspectorate of Probation. (Paragraph 126). 

We do not accept this recommendation. Rather, HMPPS is developing a wide-ranging HR programme as part of its professional recognition programme. We recognise that resource requirements to manage cases will vary. As a result, HMPPS is seeking to deploy a common tiering framework for offender management to enable comparisons of workload. Current workforce planning assumptions for offender management are for average caseloads to be below 60. This is in line with HM Inspectorate of Probation guidance, which states: “Aggregate caseloads of more than 60 cases would normally be considered difficult to supervise effectively.” 

We are working hard to recruit more probation officers. In 2018, 707 Probation Service Officers were appointed, some of whom will be training to become qualified probation officers. 

We also want to ensure that our staff’s professional service is supported by ongoing continuous professional development and recognition through an independent statutory register for probation professionals and intend to bring forward legislation when Parliamentary time allows to establish this. This will help ensure there is a shared identify and culture amongst all staff who will be in the NPS in the future. 

By 1 February 2019, the Ministry of Justice should ensure that security constraints and IT barriers which prevent data from being shared between organisations involved in managing an offender from the point of arrest, in prison and through to support in the community are proportionate. This should include identifying how the number of IT systems could be rationalised and/or linked so that the same data is not repeatedly inputted into different systems. (Paragraph 131) 

As outlined in the consultation, we recognise the importance of simplifying data access and improving data sharing. Action is already underway to facilitate better access to essential data for probation providers. 

Data sharing arrangements with other departments already exist, including with the Police, DWP, HMRC as well as between prison and probation services. Since January 2018, HMPPS has taken in-house the management of the prison case management system, Prison NOMIS, and the risk and needs assessment tool, OASys. This enables us to make changes and develop Application Programme Interfaces (APIs), which facilitate greater, faster and better data sharing internally and externally. This includes an interface to the MoJ analytics platform and performance platform. Work is also underway to migrate the probation case management system, National Delius, to a new cloud environment that is expected to reduce a number of the current access and related security constraints. This is due to be completed by the summer. 

As part of the development of the next generation of probation services, we plan to simplify data access and exchange across HMPPS digital services and deliver improvements to IT systems. We are working towards greater centralisation of data systems, in particular those relating to risk and needs assessments, and improved data sharing within HMPPS and with external partners. The HMPPS Digital and Technology Strategy is looking to address the current need for users to have access to multiple HMPPS systems and work towards establishing data services that provide the relevant information the user needs via a single interface.

(To be continued)

The MoJ Responds

I notice that the MoJ have responded to the issues raised by the Justice Committee and although somewhat lengthy, it's probably necessary to try and digest it by means of several chunks, this being the first:-   

Transforming Rehabilitation: Government Response to the Committee’s Ninth Report of Session 2017–19

Introduction 

The Government welcomes the report of the Justice Committee on Transforming Rehabilitation. The following document provides a response to each of the Committee’s recommendations which takes account of developments since the publication of the report in June 2018. In particular, responses to individual recommendations should be seen in the context of the planned reforms set out in the Government’s response to the public consultation Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence. 

The importance of the Justice Committee’s report is reflected in the Government’s decision to end contracts for Community Rehabilitation Companies early, in the publication of the public consultation on the future of probation, and in the nature of the strategic changes being brought forward. These changes are intended to directly address the structural challenges identified by the Justice Committee and reiterated in feedback from the public consultation, subsequent reports from other key stakeholders such as HM Inspectorate of Probation, and by our own internal analysis of lessons learned from Transforming Rehabilitation. 

Structural Issues 

We recommend that any significant changes made by the Ministry of Justice to CRC contracts, including those currently underway, should be publicly disclosed. This disclosure should include information on any significant changes to the payment model and funding for CRCs, as well as information on what the Ministry expects to receive in return for the changes. (Paragraph 42). 

Notice of significant changes made by the Ministry of Justice to CRC contracts have been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Regarding recently agreed changes, notice of confirmation that contract changes have been agreed was published on 8th February 2019. In the event that the Department makes any future substantial changes to the CRC contracts it will comply with any applicable transparency requirements in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 including, for example, publication of Modification Notices in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

The Ministry of Justice should move away from a “sticking-plaster” approach of rolling contract negotiations following the current round of renegotiations. If contracts are to be terminated the Ministry of Justice needs to ensure that transition plans are put in place which make sure that: offenders receive the support they require to be rehabilitated and their risk of reoffending does not increase.

The Ministry should undertake a public consultation on any further changes to ensure a wider range of views on contractual arrangements. This public consultation should consider the number of CRCs and the bodies eligible to bid for CRC contracts (Paragraph 46). 

We have taken action to terminate existing contracts early and put in place new arrangements for delivery of probation services. We also made changes to secure operational stability over the remaining, shortened, period of existing CRC contracts, including investing an additional £22 million a year in Through the Gate support for offenders when they leave prison. 

Between 27 July and 21 September 2018, we conducted a public consultation, Strengthening probation, building confidence. This sought the views of stakeholders and the wider public on a range of proposals for the future of probation. We have taken consultation responses into account as we have developed our new plans and set out the action we intend to take and our strategic approach to the future arrangements for delivery of probation services in our response on 16 May. 

We are developing a transition strategy to ensure a smooth handover from incumbent providers to new providers, and effectively manage the integration of offender management responsibilities into the National Probation Service. This will include a variety of measures to protect operational continuity of services and minimise uncertainty for staff and offenders, informed by our ongoing engagement with Trade Unions and other partners. We will also ensure we learn lessons from the integration of offender management delivery in Wales, which we plan to deliver by the end of 2019. 

The Ministry of Justice should continue to closely monitor the financial position of all CRCs to ensure that no CRC is suddenly unable to deliver probation services. It should ensure its contingency plans reflect the Principles set by the National Audit Office in its paper on “Managing Provider Failure”. (Paragraph 49). 

We accept this recommendation. As part of our full review of probation services, we have built a comprehensive picture of CRC finances. While the Department expects all CRCs to continue delivering services throughout the remaining life of the contracts, we have extensive contingency plans in place should any provider be unable to deliver their contractual requirements. We have a contingency steering group which regularly reviews the likelihood of provider failure, based on commercial, financial and operational intelligence. We have detailed contingency plans in place for all contracts, which align with the National Audit Office principles. The plans have been developed, reviewed and tested with input from relevant functions within the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS, relevant specialists across government, key officials involved in the implementation of contingency responses in other government areas and external advisors. The plans are subject to regular review. 

The Department’s response to the Administration in February 2019 of CRCs operated by Working Links demonstrates the strength of our contingency planning. The Department arranged for and oversaw a successful transfer of affected services in the South West and Wales to Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC (operated by SeeTec). Probation services remained fully operational throughout this period.

The Ministry should conduct a review after HMI Probation’s new inspection regime has been in place for a year to assess: the number of providers who are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’; the additional burden being placed on providers because of the increased frequency of inspection; and whether there were any elements of the inspection and audit regimes which could be consolidated. (Paragraph 55) 

We do not accept this recommendation. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on inspections has been agreed between the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service and HMIP. The MoU is regularly reviewed and will be fully updated in due course to reflect the implications of future probation arrangements for the oversight of probation. 

The MoU sets out how HMIP will target its recommendations following inspections and how the Ministry will respond to HMIP’s recommendations (and the implications for differing perspectives between contractual standards/SLAs and HMIP inspection standards). 

It also sets out an agreed approach to oversight of the probation system following the introduction of the inspectorate’s new inspection methodology from April 2018. HMIP is in the process of consulting on lessons learned from the first year’s application of its new inspection methodology. 

Given the different roles and remits of inspection and audit there are limits on the extent to which these functions can be consolidated. To avoid placing an excessive burden on individual providers, the MoU confirms that HMIP and the Operational Assurance team in HMPPS will share timetables of inspection and audit visits and liaise on any issues arising from the timetabling. 

The role of HMIP in providing an independent oversight of the quality of probation services will continue under future arrangements and HMI Probation will continue to independently set and review their inspection standards. MoJ and HMPPS will work closely with the inspectorate so that HMIP can consider the best approach to its future inspection regime taking account of the proposed changes to structures. 

The Ministry of Justice should review contract performance measures so that they focus on outcomes, especially on housing, employment and drug rehabilitation, rather than inputs or outputs. This review should be completed by 1 February 2019 (four years after probation services were fully divided between the NPS and CRCs). (Paragraph 62) 

Given their shortened duration the Government does not intend to review or make significant changes to existing CRC contract performance measures. As part of the programme of work underway to implement the changes set out in the Government’s response to the consultation Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence, we are developing key performance outcomes and measures to hold the National Probation Service and future contracted providers to account on their respective responsibilities. It remains our intention, as set out in the consultation response, that the future performance framework will take an outcome-focused approach to measuring quality of service delivery. It will be the responsibility of the NPS to ensure offenders receive the right interventions to improve outcomes such as accommodation, employment and health, and ultimately reduce re-offending. We will ensure the contract performance measures drive providers to focus on the quality of the services they deliver, in order to support changed lives and reduced reoffending. We will set out more detail in due course. 

In response to this Report the Ministry should set out whether the 2011 baseline for reoffending is the correct measure against which CRC performance should be assessed. If the Ministry believes that the 2011 baseline remains the correct measure it should set out its reasons why. (Paragraph 66) 

We set out in the consultation that, to provide a better reflection of CRC performance on frequency of reoffending, and to support providers in maintaining effective probation services, we would offer to amend contracts to measure CRCs against a 2015/16 baseline, rather than a baseline set in 2011. We have agreed to vary contracts with 20 of 21 CRCs. Merseyside CRC, which is owned by Purple Futures, chose to retain the 2011 baseline. 

By January 2019, when the next annual cohort data is released on final binary and frequency reoffending performance, the Ministry should ensure that CRCs receive full data relating to which of their offenders reoffended. (Paragraph 71) 

The Ministry of Justice does not have control access to the Police National Computer data, on which reoffending performance is based, and is unable to give access to the data to CRCs. This was explained during the bidding phase for CRC contracts, and some CRCs have made arrangements to access the data themselves at cost. To enable CRCs to assess progress against their targets, the Ministry of Justice published interim figures during the period in which full ‘one year’ reoffending results were not available. We continue to provide these interim figures to all CRCs. 

In response to this Report the Government should set out what other steps it is taking to address underperformance of CRCs, including in cases where service credits are not applied. (Paragraph 74) 

We have acknowledged that CRCs need to do more to improve performance in some areas. As part of negotiations on current contracts, we have introduced changes to improve performance over the now shortened remaining term of the contracts, including implementation of a new requirement to offer a minimum of monthly face-to-face contact with offenders and an enhanced specification for Through the Gate services. 

Our contract management teams continue to robustly monitor CRC contracts. Assurance includes a combination of tracking compliance against contractual obligations and assessment of the quality of service delivery. Contract Management teams have identified a series of ‘risk based’ areas – key areas of service delivery where the greatest attention is required. There are strict monthly reporting processes, including the provision of detailed management information, to facilitate robust oversight of these areas. 

Where CRC service level performance is below a prescribed level, Contract Management teams implement improvement plans to address service delivery against a specific performance metric. As of February 2019, there were 26 specific improvement plans in place across 12 of the CRCs and covering 7 service metrics.

CRCs are also required to implement action plans to address HM Inspectorate of Probation and Operational and System Assurance Group findings and recommendations. Contract Management teams agree these plans with CRCs before implementation and hold CRCs to account against the recommendations using monthly governance arrangements. 

Our starting presumption is that service credits are applied if accrued by CRCs for underperformance. On those occasions where it has been considered appropriate not to apply the service credits we have instead sought to agree a reinvestment of the value of the service credit back into the delivery of services. 

Should the Government decide that probation services should continue to be delivered as per the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, we recommend that the Government should ask HM Inspectorate of Probation to conduct a review of how best offenders should be distributed between the NPS and CRCs, and to investigate the impact of changing offender risk and how the NPS and CRCs manage this matter. (Paragraph 76). 

As set out in the Government’s response to the probation consultation, the split in responsibility for offender management on the basis of risk will not be retained under future probation arrangements. In future the National Probation Service will have responsibility for managing all offenders on a community order or on licence following release from prison. This clearer set of responsibilities will reduce duplication of roles and improve clarity and accountability whilst ensuring that we make the best use of wider private and voluntary sector provision. 

There are clear benefits for risk escalation procedures to having a single organisation responsible for managing offenders. This will allow us to better respond to changes in caseloads – for example, increases or decreases to the proportion of high or medium-low risk offenders – as well as improving continuity of supervision and removing inefficiencies as cases will no longer be required to be passed between the NPS and CRC as assessment of risk changes. 

The Ministry of Justice should assess whether it remains appropriate to encourage the NPS to use CRC Rate Card services, or whether the NPS should be liberalised to develop its own supply chain as a matter of course (Paragraph 87). 

Transforming Rehabilitation showed that real partnership working between public and private sectors can drive innovation. We recognise however that some CRCs have struggled to invest in the development of their supply chains and have often relied on developing and delivering Rate Card services themselves. This has affected the range of services they have been able to make available through the Rate Card and there has been much lower than expected use of rate card services by the NPS. 

Under plans for future probation arrangements, we are committed to harnessing the expertise and innovation of the voluntary and private sectors through the delivery of interventions – such as Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and wider resettlement and rehabilitative interventions, with the clear expectation that the NPS will source these services from the market. Each NPS region will have a private or voluntary sector partner responsible for direct provision of Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes, and supporting the NPS to identify and deliver wider innovation.

We intend to create a separate dynamic commercial framework across England and Wales for the NPS to directly procure rehabilitation and resettlement services under future probation arrangements. This is central to our plans to streamline the system and develop a greater role for smaller providers, including voluntary sector providers in future probation arrangements. Our market analysis has shown this approach, which will allow for more direct and flexible local and regional approaches to commissioning services, would be welcomed by the voluntary sector. 

The dynamic framework will operate as an open panel of suppliers, who can be admitted to the panel at any point during its lifetime subject to a qualification process (based on experience and capabilities). Eligible panel members will be invited to participate in mini-competitions for the services required. Contracts will be designed flexibly, so that innovative approaches that show results can be quickly identified and spread across the wider system. 

We recommend that in response to this Report the Ministry of Justice should set out its vision for future local accountability of probation and the role that Police and Crime Commissioners might play. (Paragraph 90) 

We have engaged PCCs on how they could more effectively support probation services in the future and how probation can better work with them to engage with the local criminal justice system. We want NPS Regional Directors to be working with PCCs to identify shared strategic priorities, with an expectation that they would seek opportunities to co-commission services that reduce reoffending. To enable this, we are considering how probation performance and needs data can be meaningfully shared at a local level. Where appropriate, PCCs will also be represented during the recruitment process for the Regional Director posts. We will continue to engage with PCCs to ensure probation can take advantage of their developing role in local criminal justice systems.

(To be continued)

Reading the Runes

These are strange times indeed as we wait to see how the Tories find a new leader and wonder what it will all mean for the future of our extremely-troubled criminal justice system. To assist us, Rob Allen has been reading the runes:- 

Sentencing Blues?

Justice Secretary David Gauke told MPs this week that he had tried out a GPS electronic tag that had monitored his whereabouts for two days. The question is where he will be after July 22 - the date a new Prime Minister will be in place - and more importantly what will become of his plans to reform sentencing.

On the abolition of short prison terms for most offences, Gauke told the Commons “we are working towards having firm proposals by the summer”. I read that as at best a White Paper. At worst the proposals may not see the light of day.

Why? For one thing, it’s hard to see a traumatised probation service being able to up its game in time. More importantly, a new Downing Street regime eager to reclaim Conservative supporters from the clutches of Nigel Farage, may be reluctant about -or hostile to - a policy that can be made to look soft on crime.

Conservative Home and Justice Secretaries have embraced a wide spectrum of views over the years - with hardliners like Leon Brittan, Michael Howard, and Chris Grayling, as likely to forge penal policy as the more liberal Douglas Hurd, Michael Gove and now Gauke.

Tory Prime Ministers have varied too in the interest they have shown in criminal justice. Margaret Thatcher surprisingly let Hurd (with his special adviser David Lidington) pursue a moderate Home Office agenda, culminating in a 1991 Criminal Justice Act which aimed to reserve prison for the most serious cases. By contrast, John Major’s desire to condemn a little more and understand a little less gave a green light to Howard’s baleful notion that Prison Works - though it was actually revisions to the 1991 Act by Ken Clarke - usually thought of as a liberal - which started the punitive counter revolution. Cameron’s attachment to prison reform was as superficial as it was hyperbolic- something that might be said of Gove’s tenure as Justice Secretary too.

Of the current leadership contenders, for what it’s worth, I’d place Leadsom, McVey, and Raab - all from the right of the party - in the punishment camp with former prison ministers Gyimah and Stewart, with Gove in the more rehabilitative tradition. The others are harder to call. Javid looks a far from liberal Home Secretary but has endorsed a public health approach to violence. Hancock, though Health Secretary denounced that approach, seemingly badly briefed. Hunt is socially liberal, though suggesting in 2010 that hooliganism played a role in the Hillsborough disaster raises questions. As immigration minister, Harper piloted the “Go Home or Risk arrest Vans, which he apparently doesn’t regret.

What of the favourite? A recent Telegraph piece by Boris Johnson promised a harder line, on serious offenders than “our cock-eyed crook-coddling criminal justice system” currently provides. Yet as London Mayor, he funded an interesting resettlement programme at Feltham YOI though then proceeded to overclaim its success.

Many factors influence a politician’s stance on crime as on anything else. For good or ill, ideological preferences can be modified by short term political calculation, affordability, technical feasibility even personal experience. I’ve seen it suggested that Tony Blair’s tough approach to crime was at least reinforced when his mother in law was the victim of a mugging.

It’s possible Johnson might allow a modest attempt to reduce short sentences alongside a more restrictive regime on early release for those on longer ones. Offsetting a positive reform with a crackdown elsewhere would be nothing new.

40 years ago, Thatcher’s first Home Secretary William Whitelaw tried to introduce a more generous early release scheme to reduce prison numbers but is mainly remembered for notorious short sharp shock Detention Centres. Making prisoners serve longer will lead to a potentially large increase in the prison population, even if short sentences fall. This is what seems to be happening in Scotland where despite a presumption against short prison terms, the overall numbers behind bars have gone up. If something similar is the political price to pay for Gauke’s reforms, they could prove something of a pyrrhic victory. Lets hope its not a price that has to be paid.

Rob Allen

HMPPS and 'Inhumane' Prisons

As the MoJ continues making plans for the future of probation in England and Wales as part of HMPPS, it's worth reminding ourselves that this same employer is responsible for prisons that are 'inhumane'. This press release from Dame Anne Owers, National Chair of IMBs:- 

The prison system is in a state of ‘fragile recovery’ after a lengthy period of staffing problems, increases in drugs and violence, and inadequate rehabilitation opportunities, said a report published today, summarising the findings of prison independent monitoring boards in England and Wales to the end of 2018.

In the report, Dame Anne Owers, National Chair of the IMBs, highlights:

• the damage to regimes caused by insufficient staff, and then the risks resulting from a high proportion of new and inexperienced staff
• the impact of new psychoactive substances on prison safety, with a rise in violence and self-harm
• continuing failings in prison maintenance contracts, with crumbling infrastructure and sometimes degrading conditions
• the over-use of segregation for prisoners with serious mental health concerns or risks of self-harm
• the long-standing inability to manage prisoners’ property effectively; and
• the shortcomings of community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) and housing and benefits problems that undermine successful resettlement.

Dame Anne said that some new initiatives were showing signs of promise, but that it was too early to say whether they would have a sustained impact on outcomes for prisoners. They include:

• staff recruitment drives
• management focus on decent conditions
• the new drug strategy and measures to prevent the entry of drugs
• the roll-out of offender management in custody; and
• revised processes for supporting prisoners at risk of self-harm and reducing violence.

Boards will continue to monitor the impact of these changes.

The report also raised significant concerns about the number of prisoners with serious mental health conditions, or at risk of self-harm, being held for lengthy periods in segregation units, where their condition deteriorates. It points to the need for more appropriate alternative provision, particularly in NHS facilities.

Dame Anne said: “There is no question that IMBs are still reporting some serious and ongoing problems in prisons. The decline in safety, conditions and purposeful activity in prisons over the last few years has seriously hampered their ability to rehabilitate prisoners.

“This will take time to reverse, and will require consistent leadership and management both in the Prison Service and the Ministry of Justice, as new staff, policies and resources bed in.

“This report provides a benchmark against which we will be able to judge progress. IMBs will continue to monitor and report on the new initiatives now being rolled out and their impact on the ground on the conditions and treatment of prisoners and the ability of prisons to turn lives round.”

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

'Inhumane': damning report on English and Welsh prisons

Prisoners are living in squalid and inhumane conditions in buildings that are unfit for purpose, according to a report that paints a damning picture of prisons in England and Wales. The report, which details the crumbling infrastructure of prisons, summarises the findings of independent monitoring boards in the two countries to the end of 2018.

Boards raised a number of failings that directly affected health and safety, including overflowing toilets and urinals, damp, mould and unheated cells, and a sewage pipe uncapped for months. Four prison boards described conditions as squalid, others as inhumane and unfit for purpose.

In Exeter prisoners were forced to use buckets to flush their toilets since these were blocked, and there was waste and excrement on the floor, and overflowing urinals. At Lincoln prison the health and safety executive is investigating the origin of a legionella outbreak that left one prisoner dead. Half the prisoners at Long Lartin and 400 prisoners at Coldingley were in cells without any integral sanitation; the boards at those prisons described the situation as “inhumane and undignified”.

Dame Anne Owers, chair of the Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs), said the prison system was in a state of “fragile recovery”, pointing to improvements in staff recruitment drives, the new drug strategy and measures to prevent the entry of drugs, as well as revised processes for reducing violence and supporting prisoners at risk of self harm. But she added it was too early to say whether new initiatives would have a sustained impact on prisoners.

Owers said: 

“There is no question that IMBs are still reporting some serious and ongoing problems in prisons. The decline in safety, conditions and purposeful activity in prisons over the last few years has seriously hampered their ability to rehabilitate prisoners. This will take time to reverse, and will require consistent leadership and management both in the Prison Service and the Ministry of Justice, as new staff, policies and resources bed in. Boards across England and Wales continued to raise the issue of two prisoners sharing a cell meant for one – with a toilet, sometimes unscreened, in a cramped space where they also ate their meals, which the report noted, “would not be acceptable in any other publicly owned building”.

The report pointed to failures in maintenance contracts, which exacerbated the problems caused by under investment over many years. One prison had 900 outstanding jobs, another more than 1,300 planned and 1,300 preventive jobs. The mother and baby unit at Eastwood Park, one of only three in the country, was out of use for more than two years because of catastrophic water damage.

The report also highlighted the issue of insufficient and inexperienced staff, the impact of new psychoactive substances on prison safety, the overuse of segregation for prisoners with serious mental health concerns, and shortcomings of community rehabilitation companies, as well as housing and benefits problems that undermined successful resettlement.

Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “As the eyes and ears of the local community, people who volunteer to be independent monitors play a vital role in trying to keep prisons safe. Their reports reveal the enormity of the challenge to transform a failing prison system that has been asked to do too much with too little for too long.”

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “This report makes very sobering reading for the new prisons minister, Robert Buckland. There can be no disputing the firsthand, directly observed, evidence of over 51,000 individual visits to prisons. The report describes a catalogue of failure to deliver even the most basic standards of care and a chronic waste of human and physical resources in our prison system.

Buckland said: “I want to thank members of independent monitoring boards across England and Wales for their continued dedication, commitment and hard work. I recognise the board’s concerns and we are tackling the issues raised head on. Over the last year we have invested more than £70m to get more officers on the landings, disrupt organised crime and improve security, and, as the report notes, we are starting to see some positive results.”

What Probation Could Look Like

I notice Russell Webster has filled in some of the gaps regarding the MoJ plans for the future look of probation. It's difficult to say whether this extends our knowledge beyond what was given during recent 'launch' events, but I found taking notes difficult due to poor acoustics. 

Unpaid work

Officials shared some of the current problems with Unpaid Work which they are hoping to address in the new contracts with the 11 new “Innovation Partners” (the successors to the current 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies) who will be delivering both Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes in each of the 11 NPS regions. The main problems are:

• Not enough good quality placements, with too many on the day cancellations.
• Under use of the 20% of Unpaid Work hours which may be used to address service users’ employment, training and education (TT) needs.
• A lack of intensive placements for service user unemployed.
• A lack of appropriate placements for female service users.
• Too many orders not completed within the 12 month period.
• Excessive travel time.

Accredited programmes

Civil servants presented figures showing that the total volume of accredited programmes commenced under community orders (and suspended sentence orders) has fallen since 2006. This has led to a situation where the low volume of referrals can make it hard to secure viable numbers deliver individual programs; leading to longer waiting lists which reduces confidence in the availability of programmes, which then further reduces referrals.

The MoJ wish to address this situation by ensuring that in the future Accredited Programmes are the intervention of choice for all service users on community orders where eligibility criteria are met. This is expected to increase the volume of Accredited Programmes and therefore, presumably, the value of the new contracts.

Resettlement

Resettlement services will be commissioned via the “Dynamic Framework” in a separate competition from the 11 big contracts to deliver Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes in each probation region. There is no decision yet on how the £280 million annual budget will be split between these two competitions.

Although the Dynamic Framework is supposed to make it easier for smaller voluntary sector providers to win work to be delivered on a local (or regional) basis, it is clear that the big providers who are bidding to be “Innovative Partners” delivering the regional Unpaid Work and Accredited Programme contracts will also be able to bid.

Some features of the plans for resettlement became a bit clearer. Prison officers will have the lead through the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) system for ensuring that serving prisoners participate in the appropriate prison programmes. Handover from prison staff to NPS responsible officers (based, as far as I can tell in a service user’s home probation area, rather than in prison) will take place between 10 and 3 months pre-release. The NPS responsible officer will be the person deciding what resettlement services an individual service user requires during this pre-release period and on release and will match them with appropriate services delivered by providers who have been successful in winning contracts through the Dynamic Framework (these contracts, by the way, are currently anticipated to vary in length from between 1-4 years).

Regional outcomes and Innovation Fund

We were also given outline details of the new regional Outcome and “Innovation” Fund which will reserve £20 million from the 280 million budget to be spent on innovative, cross-cutting approaches, with the intention of engaging a wide range of voluntary sector providers. The aim of the fund is to:

• Build capacity and drive innovation in approaches to tackling wider system outcomes
• Encourage joint investment and co-commissioning
• Leverage additional funding locally and nationally by joining up service provision for offenders, particularly those with multiple and complex needs.

An example was given of “Full Circle”, a multi-agency delivery model in Essex which offers complex needs offenders a fully integrated care navigation service.

Russell Webster

So, Does It Work Or Not?

There's always been a bit of a mystery as to exactly what 'works' in relation to encouraging offenders to change their behaviour and many experienced probation staff were sceptical of 'one size fits all' approaches introduced some years ago and that had to be delivered in extremely proscribed fashion. I see Danny Shaw at the BBC reported yesterday on a recent report from Transform Justice:-

Offender rehabilitation schemes 'not tested'

More than 118,000 offenders have taken part in rehabilitation programmes that have yet to be fully tested to see if they work, BBC News has learned. Courses for sex offenders and domestic abusers are among those which haven't been subject to an "outcome evaluation".

The charity Transform Justice, which compiled the data, said it meant they "have no idea" if the programmes have a positive or negative impact. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said although it aimed to conduct evaluations to an "academic standard" it could take years to develop a "robust data sample".

According to MoJ figures supplied to Transform Justice, 25 offender behaviour programmes currently run by HM Prison and Probation Service have not had an outcome evaluation. The evaluation consists of a research study which investigates the impact of an intervention - whether it worked and, if it did, how well it worked.

Between 2010 and 2018, 16,434 prisoners in England and Wales began non-evaluated courses and 101,662 offenders serving community sentences started such programmes between 2009/10 and 2016/17. In custody, the non-evaluated programme most commonly used was RESOLVE, a cognitive-behavioural intervention that aims to reduce violence, which was started by 7,444 inmates.

The two community-based schemes with most participants were Building Better Relationships, for male domestic violence perpetrators (15,090), and the Thinking Skills Programme, which helps offenders set goals and make plans without committing crimes (42,215). In addition, more than 20,000 sex offenders - in jail or on community orders - began courses which hadn't been fully evaluated.

Peter Neyroud, a former chief constable and an independent member of the MoJ's Data, Evidence and Science Board, said he was "concerned" about the findings and wanted them to be addressed. "You would have expected that every significant programme that the Ministry of Justice is funding and recommending out for delivery would have a clear basis in evidence, and would be tracked to make sure that it's actually matching the outcomes you'd expect - and I can't see from the evidence I've seen here that this is happening," he told BBC News.

In March 2017, the MoJ scrapped its main sex offender treatment scheme (SOTP) after research found that prisoners completing the programme were slightly more likely to offend than a control group.

Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate who set up Transform Justice, said the "scandal" of SOTP - which had initially been devised in 1992 - must not be allowed to happen again. "There could be more disasters like the Sex Offender Treatment Programme but we just don't know," she said.

A number of courses, run by the Prison and Probation Service or outside agencies, have been evaluated but the MoJ accepted that for some programmes, with only a small number of participants, it could take five years to find out if they've had any impact. A spokesman said: "The effectiveness of these types of programmes, many of which are used successfully around the world, is constantly assessed on the ground and subject to rigorous academic-standard evaluation when there is sufficient data."

The department added that offending behaviour schemes were approved by a group of "independent, international experts" - the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel.

But Mr Neyroud, who lectures in criminology at the University of Cambridge, questioned whether the accreditation panel had sufficient information on which to base its decisions. "If as it seems the word 'accreditation' doesn't take in that this programme has got a clear evidence base and secondly that we've clearly tracked the outcomes and it's meeting those outcomes, it's good value and the public are being kept safe with it... then it simply isn't good enough," he said.

--oo00oo--

Rehabilitation programmes – do we know whether they work?

Anything which helps those who commit crimes change their behaviour has to be a good thing. For many years the rehabilitative efforts of prison and probation have been focused on behaviour changing courses or interventions. Evidence is amassed and analysed as to how one or the other programme seems to be successful in reducing reoffending. Programmes provide an easy way of “measuring” whether those who have committed crime are on the path to turning their lives around and of monitoring the performance of organisations (such as CRCs) tasked with fostering rehabilitation.

Last year Transform Justice published a report on domestic abuse and how we could reduce it. Perpetrator programmes are part of the answer but its not clear they all work equally well. We asked for the evidence that the programmes delivered in prisons and for those on probation worked and were surprised when none was forthcoming. No outcome evaluations had been done on the programmes running now (the main one has been running for five years) – the government is scoping how they might evaluate them. All the main HMPPS programmes are accredited – but all this means is that a panel of experts has said that the programme’s design is sound.

The news that the government does not know whether its own domestic abuse programmes work hardly caused a ripple. But I was disturbed, particularly since excellent out of court programmes are frowned on. I put in a freedom of information request to find out what other prisons and probation programmes were not (outcome) evaluated and the results were even more disturbing – most programmes that are running, and many that no longer run have no outcome evaluations. This means we have no idea whether they work or not. We calculate that 118,096 people have started prison and probation programmes which do not have impact evaluations.

It is really surprising that the government has not sought to find out whether these programmes work. A few years ago they had a bad experience. In 2017 they found out that the programme they had been running since 1992 to help prisoners reduce their likelihood of committing sex offences in fact had the opposite effect – doing the programme increased the chance that someone would offend again on leaving prison. The sex offender treatment programme had in fact been evaluated in 2003 – then it appeared to have no effect in reducing sex offending but did reduce “the overall combined sexual and violent reconviction rate”. But the problem with programmes is that they can work in different ways in different circumstances. Trainers may deviate from the original programme, or it maybe delivered to a different cohort. Anyway, the Sex Offender Treatment Programme was running another decade before they decided to run a new evaluation. When this showed such negative results, they quietly axed the programme and the fiasco was only revealed through Frances Crook of the Howard League and journalist David Rose.

The problem with not evaluating programmes is not just that we don’t know if they work (or worse – if they are making people more likely to re-offend) but that we are forcing people to do these programmes and punishing non-completion. Those in prison applying for parole have to complete certain programmes to be eligible for release and there are many prisoners, particularly those on IPP sentences, who have spent extra years in prison mainly because they have not completed programmes. People are ordered to go on programmes as part of community sentences. If they don’t complete them, they can be prosecuted for breach and punished with imprisonment. It seems grossly unfair that we should deprive people of their liberty for failing to do courses which may or may not work.

Plenty of drugs and interventions used by the health service have a shaky evidence base. If they go wrong they can do people great harm. The same is true of programmes prisoners are pressurised to go on. Those who have committed crimes want support to turn over a new leaf. But we let them down if we make them do courses and never seek to find out whether they help or hinder rehabilitation.

NB In our spreadsheets etc we are referring specifically to outcome/impact evaluations not process evaluations – the latter are not designed to assess whether programmes have an impact.

Another Disaster in the Making by MoJ

As we know, the MoJ has a pretty good track record of making very poor decisions, wasting vast sums of public money and little aptitude for successful contracting. An article in the Justice Gap suggests another disaster is in the making down in Northamptonshire:- 

As prisons face their biggest crisis, why are we spending £250m on a titan jail?

Next month will will see the public concentrating on the Tory leadership campaign and who will be next prime minister. Consequent upon that, there will likely be yet another justice secretary and prisons minister as the new incumbent of Number 10 rewards loyalty and bestows patronage as he or she forms their cabinet and ministerial team.

But quietly in Northamptonshire just off the A45 the first sod will be turned for a new 1,680 place Category C prison on the site of the old HMP Wellingborough. A £253 million deal has been agreed with a company called Kier for the design and construction of the jail. It will be our second biggest prison after HMP Berwyn near Wrexham which has a capacity of 2,106. It is all part of a faltering programme to replace many of England and Wales’ crumbling Victorian prisons.

Few would dispute that some of our jails are past their ‘best before’ date, expensive to run and sometimes, like HMP Dartmoor, in completely the wrong place. It is also recognised that there are design-related benefits within the prison environment if companies like Kier, working with the MoJ, consult properly before building rather than simply provide off-the-shelf warehouses. There is some excellent research now into this area from Roland Karthaus (here). And while a new-build can embed such learning from the start it is not impossible to apply some of their principles retrospectively.

But have the issues been adequately thought through? Have priorities been carefully balanced? What are the cost benefit comparisons when the MoJ still faces overall cuts.

There is no correlation between how new a prison is and how well it performs. Some old Victorian jails can be well run; some modern prisons have performed badly and not just on initial opening. If there is a pattern in prison performance it is that any jail, new or old, can fluctuate wildly in terms of how it treats prisoners. Flagships can sink and relationships can overcome crumbling brickwork. It is more about leadership and culture than modernity.

It is also apparent that closing jails that are not fit for purpose does not yield any financial dividend. George Osborne and Michael Gove were right to close Holloway, but an opportunity was missed to use at least some of the money from the sale of the site to fund the recommendations of the Corston Review and build women’s centres.

But at a time when the prison service faces the greatest crisis in its history and when funding is being continually reduced, is this the best way of spending a quarter of a billion pounds?

It will undoubtedly deliver the holy grail of lower cost per place. A mantra of ‘big is beautiful’ seems to dominate the agenda despite any evidence that large prisons deliver better outcomes. It will also, along with Berwyn, flagrantly disregard the Mandela Rules, the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners and the recommendations of the Mubarek Inquiry into the tragic murder of a young man by his racist cell mate, in having enforced cell sharing. Is two people living together in a toilet, truly the hallmark of a 21st Century prison?

The new Wellingborough will deliver much for the local economy in terms of jobs and support services and it is no wonder that local MP, the outspoken Tory MP is all in favour. It is unlikely however that the new staff recruited locally will buck the trend of leaving within their first year of service.

But in what other ways will it contribute to a troubled prison system. We are over two years on from the opening of our last ‘titanjail’. Strangely HMP Berwyn still operates well below capacity while other jails are grossly overcrowded. The governor who opened the prison left under a cloud after barely 18 months in the job to be replaced by a (very able) governor/director from the Private sector. But why the country’s largest and most prestigious jail was not suitable for aspiring governors in the public sector has not been explained. Berwyn has yet to have its first inspection by the redoubtable HM chief inspector of prisons Peter Clark but even when it does it will be difficult to evaluate any success or failure in terms of its size, function and design until it has been operating at full capacity for some time. We also await the publication of the latest prison service estate review which began in 2017. Where does Berwyn 2 fit into it?

So it appears that prison service is following on from the probation service debacle with a philosophy of ‘carry on regardless’ and policy-based evidence.

How might £250m be better spent on a prison service in crisis? One of the biggest current issues is getting people out of prison. Sentences are getting longer and prisoners are serving ever greater periods of time within them. Those on indeterminate sentences are going ever longer beyond tariff and those on fixed sentences also struggle to satisfy the Parole Board that release is a viable option. There are strong arguments that long term incarceration is actually doing harm.

Nevertheless it is a given that most prisoners will get out eventually but it is that successful transition into the community that is proving so hard for the system. And it is not just the catastrophic part-privatisation of probation that is the problem. Yes, we need a probation service that assists and problem solves rather than just acts as a reactive community police force.

Yes, the charitable sector needs to be embraced rather than exploited. And yes we must overhaul the interventions industry, but all this could be better supported by a more imaginative prison estate with smaller localised, minimum security facilities in communities where there are opportunities for housing, employment and the potential to rebuild family relationships. We need facilities with an ethos of problem solving and reintegration rather than dumb incarceration. This was inherent in the report of Baroness Jean Corston over a decade ago. The principles of supportive accommodation in the community can apply equally to men and young people as to women.

If nothing else some of the £250m to finally implement the Corston Report would transform the lives of thousands of women and tens of thousands of children. If there is not the imagination or bravery to develop new and innovative transition facilities a few million to bail hostels and Approved Premises would go a long way to reducing the prison population.

There are plaintive cries for the abolition of short sentences but that is only practicable with better community alternatives. They are cheaper in the long term than custody but up front they require investment in skilled professionals and meaningful schemes with proven interventions. They don’t come cheap, but they are cheaper than titan jails.

The portents are not good. The good people of Northamptonshire will have their new jail despite some local resistance. They will be consulted on its name, (my money is on HMP Irchester) but is it really the best initiative in the current crisis.

John Podmore

John is a freelance criminal justice consultant. He worked in the prison service for 25 years and governed three prisons – Belmarsh, Swaleside and Brixton - and spent three years as an inspector of prisons

Why Probation Needs to be Independent

Ever since the forced marriage between probation and the prison service there's been a clarion call as to the inappropriateness of this coupling. There has always been a clear clash of cultures and many probation staff, especially those with some years of service under their belt, feel strongly that civil service status is completely incompatible with probation work. 

In the wake of the TR omnishambles we now know the MoJ are in the process of wresting complete control over the remit of the CRCs and bring all offender management under the dead hand of civil service direction. Despite this, I predict they are going to be surprised at concerted professional resistance to this plan and should any probation staff not be aware of the inherent dangers, they would do well to take note of a recent Employment Tribunal case that serves to shine a harsh light on deeply disturbing cultural attitudes and practices within much of HMPPS. This from the Guardian:- 

Officials altered records in bisexual prison officer case, judge says

An investigation is under way after government officials altered and redacted documents in an employment tribunal case involving a bisexual prison officer, the Guardian has learned.

The judge, Michael Ord, sitting with two lay members in an employment tribunal in Cambridge, found earlier this year that Ben Plaistow, 41, experienced a campaign of direct discrimination and harassment because of his sexuality, and was victimised and unfairly dismissed because he complained about what took place. He was subjected to a litany of abuse including being called “poof”, “gay” and “vermin”, was pushed and slapped, and had a bottle of water squirted in his face.

Plaistow was screamed at, a colleague dug her fingernails into his face, the logo on his work bag was coloured pink and a pink fairy cake was smeared inside his work bag. One colleague threatened to put him “on his arse” and another told him he was “causing too many problems” because he complained about the ill-treatment. He was asked to disclose his sexuality during his induction at HMP Woodhill.

When he lodged complaints, which were investigated internally, he received no redress. Two of the things his colleagues found fault with were the fact he dyed his hair and wore well-pressed shirts. The tribunal found the Ministry of Justice had failed to disclose documents, carried out “inappropriate redactions” and altered documents.

“The credibility of the respondent’s [Ministry of Justice] evidence is sadly lacking. Two documents have been altered without explanation,” the tribunal judgment states. The MoJ has confirmed an internal review into the case is under way.

Seventeen officials gave evidence against Plaistow, including six prison governors, six prison officers and several other officials, some in senior roles. One prison officer who was involved in many of the allegations did not give evidence, although no explanation for this was given.

The tribunal praised the evidence of one of the witnesses, the governor, Olivia Kerr, but criticised the evidence of some of the others. It found all the senior officers, with the exception of Kerr, “were guilty of obfuscation and gave evasive answers to often the most simple of questions”. In contrast, Plaistow was found to be “a straightforward and honest witness”.

Some of the officials who gave evidence against Plaistow have been promoted since the incidents of harassment and discrimination occurred; two have been awarded OBEs in the past year. The prison has come under fire for its failure to prevent suicides and most recently for the death of Daniel Dunkley.

Plaistow was hired as a prison officer at HMP Woodhill in 2014 and was fired two years later after he was accused of gross misconduct. In December 2015, he was alleged to have used unnecessary force on a prisoner while breaking up a fight. The incident led to his suspension and subsequent dismissal. But the tribunal heard he did not use unnecessary force. This was backed up by CCTV footage and witness testimony from the prisoner, who acknowledged he was at fault.

The tribunal found Plaistow had been dismissed because of his complaints, rather than any alleged misconduct. It was highly critical of the decision by government legal department officials to redact certain documents. “The failure to give proper disclosure in this matter is in our view inexcusable,” the judgment states, and adds that it was “designed to hide the truth from the tribunal”. Plaistow wrote to his MP, Andrea Leadsom, about the abuse he was experiencing. But the MoJ did not disclose this letter until very late in the proceedings.

The tribunal concluded: “There is a pattern of conduct within the senior management of HMP Woodhill. It is a pattern of conduct which turns a blind eye to the bullying conduct which the claimant suffered.”

An MoJ spokesman said: “We do not tolerate any kind of discrimination in our prisons and take action to make sure all staff are treated appropriately and fairly. A new staff network – Pride in Prison and Probation – was set up in 2016 to support workplace equality and now has 5,000 members. We have noted the judge’s decision and are considering next steps, and a separate internal review is ongoing.”

You Are Not Alone

Whilst sat listening to the MoJ presentation the other day and feeling very uncomfortable with a strong sense of deja vu, I had the following recent contributions very much in mind:-

I salute every single person who looked around and walked away and found meaningful jobs else where. We sit with clients day after day listening and motivating them to change. Sometimes their whole lifestyle or move areas to get back their self esteem. Practise what you preach and leave. I sat in a clients home last week with a whole family in despair of a family situation and we went through how things could change for the better and ways in which we could meet them. Do what you do with clients and make radical changes to your life if your well being and family life are suffering. No one else is going to look after you. As management say, we are replaceable and only a name and number.

*****
Sorry to jump on back of your blog Jim but I’ve been an avid reader since before privatisation. I’m tentatively trying to reach out to people who left the service through ill health brought on by privatisation or were sacked on trumped up charges but the reality was their resistance to privatisation. Sorry for posting anonymously but health still very fragile. just need to know I’m not alone.

*****
No, you are definitely not alone. I'm aware of several who were affected & ejected by the Sodexo clearances in 2015, either through stress-related illness or simply because their outspoken resistance to & criticism of the TR model led them to be placed 'on notice'.

My own 'notice' came from the CEO in person during an impromptu one-on-one in a quiet corner of the office: "I'll be straight with you. You'd better take the severance package because there won't be any further opportunity to leave with something in your pocket. If you're still here after August I can guarantee you'll be leaving via disciplinary or capability. We don't want you."

That came a year after the Trust CEO wrote to all staff saying that if they challenged the 'shafting' decision he would regard it as an individuals stated intention to resign from the Trust. And the Unions' response? To sign off on the world's worst Staff Transfer Agreement.

*****
That's not all fair. Many able union activists have managed some incredible working protections and still are. Also everyone had recourse to law. Threatened staff who do as told only empower the bully. The staff transfer is as good as it gets but understand it before you criticise in error. As for the current position no CRC can attack any staff now as they will all have employed skills that will be transferable and everyone who want to return will have some rights for assessment after we are still subject to golden share government employees. It remains a fight for many.

*****
You miss the point, i.e. that was *their* experience, and a shitty one at that. I doubt the "incredible working protections" you celebrate were evident in [their] workplace, certainly not when the CEO was so explicitly ruthless. It is an unkindness to dismiss others' experiences so casually because your own experience was different.

The Staff Transfer was most certainly *not* "as good as it gets" - no TUPE, an EVR arrangement that was worthless for most, staff stripped of Ts&Cs, a 7 month moratorium on redundancy which opened the door to corporate skulduggery...

And the "golden share" only applies to the Sec of State holding a veto over CRC ownership or significant financial decisions. There's no 'golden' aspect for CRC staff. They were transferred to CRC employment. No CRC, no employment. There's no right of return to NPS. I agree with you that the fight remains for many.

*****
I accept your points thanks but no fighting back you get stuffed over. Any CPO who would have said such a thing to me formal harassment and bullying policy no hesitation. Full on fight no question no compromise. If you don't fight your accepting and of course I feel for others situation.

*****
Here replying - I'm grateful for their comments & for rowing back to some degree from their earlier position. Yes, fighting back is important, but one needs evidence. When the Trust CEO sent the letter there was hard evidence, but the unions (both Napo & Unison) did nothing, despite complaints made. That fight was stopped by their inaction. As for the CRC CEO's comments to me, they were made privately. I could never prove it happened. What chance they would ever admit they said it?

I fought a few battles as a PO of many years' standing. I remained employed for 20+ years &, I believe, delivered a pretty damn good service to the cases I worked with - as well as to union members in my role as a local rep for a couple of years, when I both received & dealt out a few blows in some tough scraps.

The TR debacle simply gave the green light to the bigoted bullies at HQs around the country, which is why sifting became shafting as those management didn't like were 'punished'. Everyone has seen the subsequent, innumerable examples of CRCs & NPS shitting on staff from a great height. It's really hard but sometimes you have to know when to walk. It wounded me & scarred me, but I can admit to having been gainfully employed in a covert role trying to undo TR.

I am still very angry - with Grayling & company, with the Trusts who rolled with it, with the managers who exploited it, with the corporate thieves who have stolen £millions, & with the unions, who were outplayed & out-manoeuvred - in fact just hopelessly out of their league. I hope they've been practising some new strategies because it will be an even tougher season coming their way...

*****
I myself was subjected to years of bullying from my line manager. The love of my job kept me in place. Times I would come home and cry on the end of the bed. I was happy at the time that I went to CRC only because my line manager would not follow me. My time in CRC had been up and down work load. But I still love my job. Hoping that I can carry on in NPS. I am a strong person but I know tough times are ahead. But if I do not meet NPS requirements then what will be will be. Everyone keep strong and have faith and look out for your work mates.

*****
I have been with NPS and now CRC for 23 years in total. I remember too well the stress caused to myself and others. Those who left. Those who had to take any job in CRC to stay employed. I cannot believe we are all at the same stage again. But this time I am looking after me. I will not allow them to stress me out again. Everyone look out for all. Everyone is needing support at this disgusting mess that we are in. Thrown to the wolves.

It's Probation Jim, but not as we know it!

Quietly-spoken, but through gritted teeth, at a recent Probation Programme launch event the Deputy Director Probation, Jim Barton, had a stab at trying to explain the reasoning behind the MoJ's recent u-turn in dumping the planned TR2. To an audience of mostly eager potential bidders from the third or voluntary sector, he tried his best to put some positive spin on something he clearly had difficulty with, having of course been an enthusiastic supporter of TR from the start. 

Clearly somewhat uncomfortable having to apologise to an audience that only some eight months previously had sat in the same room listening to an enthusiastic presentation on the prospects on offer with TR2, he said there were principally three reasons why it had been scrapped:-

• The MoJ could say they'd listened to the consultation. I think even Jim could see the absurdity of such a notion as of course it was just a 'sham' exercise which they fully intended to ignore with the original plans for TR2. 

• The message that TR had failed was just too strong. We owe a great debt of gratitude to Dame Glenys for providing the final, defining statement that nailed the coffin that TR was 'iredeemably flawed'. Jim didn't agree of course.

• The contract failures. The MoJ just couldn't stomach the prospect of insolvency practitioners poring over the tattered remains of failed probation companies. In truth I suspect the politicians had a serious fright.

Obviously still smarting from having to admit that the sheer tsunami of negative messages regarding TR proved impossible to hold back, rather than admit any of it might be true, he then rather more enthusiastically launched into what the MoJ were hoping would be delivered as a result of the decision to keep a firm grip on offender management. 

Basically there should be no surprise in a determination to maintain a viable 'mixed market' of keen and eager service providers, but commissioned and kept control of by the local NPS regions. He did not rule out the North West being split as it was the largest after London. He wanted the status of probation raised, but with Brexit shenanigans it would take at least 2 years to legislate for professional certification. 

What was also clear is that 'ministers are absolutely determined to get a grip on sentencing' no doubt by increasing sentencer confidence, legislating on trying to prevent short custodial sentences, or both. Of course quite a mountain to climb for a number of reasons including the fierce independence of the judiciary and the political realities of a Tory government trying to sell the idea to its loyal party members, but absolutely essential for this new plan to work.

In the scheme of things and knowing the eye-watering sums of money that the MoJ have pissed-up the wall on numerous poorly-designed contracts over the last few years, I couldn't help but be amused to hear Jim stressing over and over how the budget was £280 million 'and every penny had to be accounted for to HM Treasury'. The man is clearly deluded.

Despite this, he went on to assure the audience that there was indeed a willingness to 'spend more on probation'. Somewhat alarmingly and especially given the MoJ IT record, he also made it plain that they would be in complete control of all digital platforms with all contractors required to use the NPS system. What could possibly go wrong?

To be perfectly frank I found the whole experience deeply troubling and alarmingly reminiscent of the Cardiff event prior to TR. To be in a room full of people keen and eager to get a slice of the profession and skilled enterprise you hold dear and discussing things using alien commercial language I found quite distressing. I came away even more determined to do my damnedest to make sure those 'transition and mobilisation risks' you mentioned are as high as possible Mr Barton.  

--oo00oo--

I thought I'd round this off with the following report of the minutes of a meeting of the All-Party Group on Penal Affairs, held on 23 October 2018 in order to put the above into some context:-        

Lord Ramsbotham introduced Jim Barton, Director of the Probation Programme at the Ministry of Justice and thanked him for coming to the meeting.

Jim Barton introduced himself and explained he has eight years’ experience as a probation officer. Jim has spent the last 18 months working with colleagues to look at what can be done in response to the challenges in the Community Rehabilitation Company contracts.

In June of this year the Justice Select Committee published a report of its inquiry into the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme. It recommended some short and medium term solutions to address the serious issues that have arisen as a result of these reforms. The Ministry of Justice has decided to terminate the contracts in 2020 before they were due to expire in 2022.

The problems faced by the probation service are fully described in the Justice Committee report and also in the Public Accounts Committee report published in January. Jim referred to some of the problems that were discussed earlier in the meeting and how the reduction in community orders meant the value in those CRC contracts fell by a third within their first year. This created a situation where the commercial providers were being expected to run services at a considerable loss.

The MoJ took steps last summer to renegotiate the contracts in response to those issues, an adjustment worth just over £270 million. At the time the department thought this would achieve the necessary conditions for stability. However the CRC performance in reducing reoffending, particularly the number of times an offender reoffends, meant that providers were facing considerable loss for the remaining life of the contracts and the position became untenable. Hence the decision with Ministers to end the contracts early and replace them with professional arrangements which would incorporate lessons learned.

Jim was clear that the department is very focused on restoring sentencers’ confidence in community sentence. The Secretary of State, David Gauke, has been very vocal about his commitment to reduce the volume of short custodial sentences. After four years of structural upheaval it has been decided not to make significant changes to frontline services. Instead the department will respond to specific issues and problems that have been identified and focus on the basics of good probation delivery in the contractual arrangements. Jim discussed how the TR contracts were publicly described as ‘black box’ contracts where providers were free to choose how to deliver their service. Jim concurred there was a fair amount of leeway for space and innovation around rehabilitation activity but basic standards had often been dropped. Now it is recognised that there needs to be more consistent frameworks as to what constitutes an effective rehabilitation requirements or interventions, so that sentencers have confidence in both the punishment and the rehabilitation elements of a sentence.

Rehabilitation Activity Requirements will be more tightly specified from now on and linked to clear instructions on the form and frequency of supervision by the probation service. In order to stabilise provision in the interim, the department has introduced a requirement that all offenders will be offered at least a month of face to face contact in the first 12 months of an order or licence for the duration of the contracts until they cease in 2020.

Jim was able to confirm that there are now mandated specifications and requirements that all providers will be expected to deliver in order to create a baseline position that sentencers and the department can have confidence in. Jim emphasised that he absolutely agrees that the TR model has created numerous challenges, through implementation rather than by design. Jim acknowledged that others may disagree with this assessment.

Another development is introduction of CRC staff into some courts magistrates courts in particular, to ensure sentencers have effective information at the point of sentence around the interventions available. The CRC staff will be there to answer questions and give a view on why a specific intervention might be appropriate.

More generally Jim said there are numerous things the department can do to integrate provision without going through fundamental structural change. The plan is to do that by bringing the public level service and the commercial level service under a single Probation Service Leader who will oversee the ten proposed regions.

Jim acknowledged that the ten regions are not aligned with the way other parts of the Criminal Justice System are organised. PCCs are lobbying understandably for the department to move to a model of 42. However the department does not believe that is possible within a reasonable span of control. However it does agree that PCCs need to have a stronger voice in the commissioning process for local services that underpin the statutory provision of the NPS and CRCs.

The department recognises that 2020 is quite a way away and that over two years 300,000 offenders will potentially cycle through the system. Everything needs to be done to increase stability. In addition to the requirement for a minimum of face to face contact the department is also investing in Through the Gate provision which the HM Inspector of Probation has rightly raised concerns around. An extra £22 million pounds per year for the next two years has been allocated.

Jim stated that they will also make changes to the Payment by Results mechanism. The reason for doing this is that as things stand the department is holding providers to account for a deterioration of reoffending frequency rates that happened before their watch and therefore are being financially penalised for something that they have no control over. Jim commented that this feels like a perverse thing for the department to do in the context of a system that is not fully funded.

To conclude Jim explained where the department is in process terms. There were 470 responses to the consultation which closed on 21 September 2018 and they are working their way through them and have a series of discussions planned with Ministers and others across Whitehall plus engagement with staff and stakeholders. The public response to the consultation will be published in April 2019.