Thursday 28 April 2016

NAO : Problems with TR

Every now and then regular readers are irritated by bald statements on this blog saying things to the effect 'TR is a success' . I normally delete them. Well, here we have the key findings of today's National Audit Office report and despite some brave attempts at positive spin, I think it's pretty clear as to how TR is doing:-

Key findings 

The performance of the reformed system 

6 Services have been sustained throughout a period of major change, with users reporting that services had stayed the same or improved since the reforms. Based on survey data from service users across four CRCs, overall 77% of service users considered they had not noticed any change in the overall service they personally received. However, users also provided views on specific services they received. User dissatisfaction was highest in obtaining help with housing; having to repeat information to different people; the level of support that supervisors provided to offenders; and help with finding employment. Such aspects are in part influenced by wider factors outside the control of probation bodies (paragraphs 3.14 to 3.18). 

7 The performance of CRCs and the NPS remains unclear given limitations around data quality and availability. Until data on reoffending are compiled in late 2017, data on performance are limited to information on service levels for the completion of probation activities. The Ministry allowed eight months until September 2015 before performance of CRCs would be open to contractual penalties.
  • As at December 2015, NOMS has no data for three of 24 CRC service levels and assurance metrics, and insufficiently robust data in another two. Nationally, CRC performance is at or above target levels in seven of the remaining 19 measures, including positive completion of court orders, seen by the Ministry as a leading indicator for future reoffending. However, performance varies significantly across CRCs and the contracts require that CRCs achieve all targets by February 2017. NOMS is currently only applying service credits for poor performance against one level, due to data availability and quality for others. To date some £78,000 in service credits have been applied, at two CRCs. 
  • The NPS has similar issues including currently no data for five of 25 NPS service levels and insufficiently robust data in another two. Performance is at or above targets in seven of the remaining 18 measures. However service level agreements require that NPS achieves all targets by April 2017. In the important measure of positive completion of court orders, NPS performance is lower than the equivalent performance by CRCs (70% versus 80% in December 2015) (paragraphs 2.2 to 2.8). 
8 NOMS has established robust and thorough contract management and assurance arrangements but has no plan for moving to a more risk-based approach as delivery under the contracts matures. NOMS has applied lessons from previous failures and has invested heavily in robust CRC contract management, which accounts for 2.1% of contract spend. However, many staff in CRCs were concerned about the extent and trajectory of contract management and operational assurance activity. NPS has much more limited contract management capability, albeit for much lower-value contracts. It is currently trying to identify all the contracts it holds, establish precisely what goods and services it is paying for and revise its approach to commercial activity (paragraphs 2.9 to 2.19). 

Meeting current operational challenges 

9 The reforms have established new organisations with different incentives, creating unsurprising frictions between CRC and NPS staff at working level, which will take time to work through. Close cooperation is essential to handle the transfer of offenders between CRCs and the NPS when their risks change or when they breach the terms of their probation. Many junior staff we spoke to in CRCs considered their NPS contacts were often unduly critical and dismissive, while many junior staff in the NPS thought that their CRC contacts were often not providing them with necessary information and had become too focused on their commercial interests as opposed to the best interests of offenders. We saw efforts by local CRC and NPS managers to address such differences and build trust, but at this early stage the organisations have more to do to ensure that they work together more effectively to improve case management (paragraphs 3.1 to 3.4).

10 Concerns over probation workloads are not new, although staff in both the CRCs and the NPS considered that high workloads have reduced the supervision and training that they receive and the service they provide. CRCs are reducing their workforce in advance of transformation while the NPS is increasing staff. There is no single ‘right’ number for workload, which depends on case risk and complexity. In the four CRCs we visited, only three provided individual caseload data and these were presented as an average, which masks any variation within and across CRCs. While the average caseload was between 34 and 42 cases, we met staff handling significantly higher caseloads, which they considered prevented them providing an adequate service. The NPS has been operating above recommended capacity in two of its seven regions, although ongoing recruitment of some 650 trainee probation officers should help address shortfalls in the medium term (paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9). 

11 The various ICT systems used in probation casework create severe inefficiencies. New tools used by the NPS for assessing and allocating offenders are cumbersome and require repeated data re-entry. Staff also attributed several hours per person per week of lost working time to nDelius, the main probation case management system adopted before the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. The NPS expects to continue using these systems for the foreseeable future. All CRCs planned to replace existing ICT systems once they could develop new case management and assessment systems, but NOMS was delayed in developing and implementing the interface (the Gateway) required for CRCs to share data on offenders. The interface was originally planned for delivery in June 2015, but was delayed due to other priorities and increased scope. At the time of finalising this report the Ministry advised us that the Gateway had been developed and was awaiting joint testing with CRCs’ systems. As CRCs consider such links as essential to their transformation plans they have estimated consequent costs, which are subject to ongoing negotiations (paragraphs 3.10 to 3.13). 

Ensuring that transformation is achieved 

12 The Ministry did well to sustain competition and conclude deals for all 21 CRCs within the cost limits and timescales set by ministers, but the procurement has left some difficult issues to manage. The Ministry attracted interest from many providers new to probation and as a result secured affordable bids for an expanded range of services at all 21 CRCs by February 2015. Selected bidders offered cost savings sufficient to fund the expansion of supervision to short sentence offenders, and to fund an estimated £259 million of success payments over ten years for reducing offending. Offers were received from a total of 19 bidders, down from 30 originally invited to negotiate, as the Ministry maintained its position on key contract terms. This reduction in bidders resulted in only one compliant bid for five of the 21 CRCs, although these all met the qualitative and financial thresholds required by the department. Completing the procurement in a challenging timetable, combined with uncertainties arising from the concurrent changes in the probation system, limited bidders’ understanding of their exposure to business risk (paragraphs 1.5 to 1.10).

13 CRC business volumes are much lower than the Ministry modelled during the procurement, which, if translated into reduced income, would affect the ability of CRCs to transform their businesses. The volume reductions vary greatly, from 6% to 36%. The Ministry attributes the volume reductions to fewer cases going through the justice system, including fewer than expected low- and medium-risk cases for CRCs, and the declining use of certain sentences, which was accentuated by new deadlines for allocating cases. Income shortfalls, which are under commercial negotiation, would affect CRCs’ capacity to bring in new ways of rehabilitating offenders, introduce new ICT systems, implement estates strategies and reform corporate support services. They also increase the risk of underperformance or default. The Ministry has contractual powers to help it mitigate some of these risks, although having to replace a failing provider would be challenging and disruptive. Its insights into CRC finances and funding challenges are still developing (paragraphs 4.1 to 4.10). 

14 CRCs are paid primarily for completing specified activities with offenders rather than for reducing reoffending, which also risks hindering innovative practice. This was a realistic choice, reflecting the limited appetite of providers to accept a higher element of payment by results. But given the limited weight of payment by results, it is critical that these fees for activities (‘fees for service’) better incentivise CRCs to adopt innovative approaches to reduce reoffending, and not just established practice (paragraphs 1.14 to 1.19). 

15 The NPS has higher than predicted caseloads and faces a difficult further period of change if it is to play a fully effective role in the transformed and national probation service. Its front-line managers face increasing pressure, including dealing with higher than expected workloads, now of high-risk offenders, while assimilating a heavy influx of trainees, who will take time to become fully effective professionals. At the same time, probation managers are acquiring new responsibilities for managing support services, such as human resources and office management; a key source of dissatisfaction among staff we interviewed. The NPS’s new change programme, announced in November 2015, is attempting to tackle regional variations in probation practices but has not focused specifically on support services (paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7). 

16 Arrangements to resettle offenders ‘Through the Gate’ are still in their early stages. CRCs delivering resettlement services in prisons have been focused on commencing services and meeting contractual measures based on completing processes, rather than on service quality, which we understand varies significantly across prisons. To date, it is unclear what new processes CRCs will introduce into resettlement services and the impact these will have on providers’ overall payment by results (paragraphs 4.15 and 4.16).

17 The Ministry has more work to do to sustain the supply chain of mainly voluntary sector bodies now working to CRCs and the NPS. Although the Ministry put extensive effort into attracting voluntary sector bidders, these largely lost out to private sector contractors when bidding to lead CRCs, due to their more limited resources and appetite for risk. The voluntary bodies still have a major role as suppliers to CRCs, although recent surveys of the sector indicate increased uncertainty and instability in funding of their work with offenders. Similarly, the Ministry has identified gaps in provision, which it and CRCs will need to address (paragraph 4.11). 

Conclusion on value for money 

18 The Ministry has successfully restructured the probation landscape, avoiding major disruptions in service during a difficult transition period. But this is only the beginning. If the Ministry is to stabilise, and improve, the performance of CRCs and the NPS it needs to continue to address operational problems, such as underlying capacity issues, weaknesses in ICT systems and performance data, and improve working relationships between NPS and CRC staff – some of which are unsurprising given the scale of reforms. 

19 Ultimately, the success of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms will depend on the extent to which they create the conditions and incentives to reduce reoffending. While NOMS’ oversight of CRCs is robust, significantly lower levels of business than the Ministry projected will affect some CRCs’ ability to deliver the level of innovation they proposed in their bids. Furthermore, the NPS is not yet operating as a truly national, sustainable service. Achieving value for money from the new probation system will require resolving these fundamental issues, and ensuring the right incentives for all participants in the system. 

Recommendation to the Infrastructure and Projects Authority 

a The Authority should ensure that its guidance to departments outsourcing complex transformed services considers how to mitigate or reduce risk and uncertainty from concurrent changes, including through different phasing. High uncertainty over future business can reduce competition during procurement and cause later problems. Key issues affecting Transforming Rehabilitation during and since procurement are due to outsourcing immature CRC businesses within a changing new probation system.

Recommendations to the Ministry of Justice 

Sustaining the new market 

b NOMS should combine its ongoing analysis of the CRC supply chain with feedback from voluntary organisations to identify and address gaps in provision in consultation with CRCs. 

Achieving business transformation 

c NOMS needs deeper understanding of the financial and service viability of CRCs. It should focus its analysis on CRCs’ financial capacity to sustain their full transformation and service delivery plans. 

d The NPS should expand its change programme. The programme should be expanded to include corporate support services and establish an operational assurance function to assess the quality of work and regional compliance with the new ways of working. 
  • NPS risks being left behind by CRCs’ investment in new offender management systems; it needs to replace its own unfit and inefficient systems, learning from CRCs’ progress in making replacements. 
Contract management 

e NOMS should map out the trajectory of its investment in contract management and how that will impact its CRC contract assurance functions. NOMS should also give CRCs a stronger incentive to improve the rigour of their own performance and reporting systems by offering reduced contract management oversight to proven robust systems. 
  • The management of NPS’s CRC contracts should be delivered by the existing teams in NOMS who already manage CRCs. 
Managing and incentivising performance 

f The Ministry should, as a matter of urgency, ensure data are available to support the contract and performance management of CRCs and the NPS. Performance against all service levels should be based on at least monthly data. 

g The Ministry should regularly review the composition of the fee for services to ensure that it incorporates and incentivises innovative approaches to reducing reoffending.

30 comments:

  1. Napo Press Release:-

    Napo welcomes the publication of today’s report and the findings highlighted. The implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation has created significant challenges for our members over the last 18 months and this report confirms our ongoing concerns about sustainability and service delivery. The report highlights concerns in both the National Probation Service (NPS) and the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs).

    Whilst Napo is working closely with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to develop an improved operating model for the National Probation Service (NPS) it is clear from these findings that much work is still needed to enable the NPS to operate as a national and sustainable service. Of note are the ongoing issues with ICT that prevent both the NPS and the CRCs from operating to their full ability and excessive workloads in the NPS due to higher than expected levels of business and lack of resources. Unless the NPS is fully resourced and there is an ongoing commitment from the MoJ to do so, it runs the risk of staff burn-out, service delivery will be compromised and monitoring of high and very high risk offenders will be reduced.

    Lower than expected levels of business for the CRCs has resulted in significant job losses across a large number of CRCs and a significant variation in the performance levels of the CRCs. Napo supports the National Audit Office’s findings that this lack of business creates significant risks that need to be better understood and that these risks hinder the development of innovative ways to reduce re-offending. The MoJ must address this as well as taking a greater interest in the CRCs’ various operating models that, in our view, could pose substantial risks to community safety: for example, reducing levels of staffing and moving to call centre approaches rather than one-to-one supervision of offenders.

    Ian Lawrence, General Secretary, said: “Whilst Napo will continue to work with the MoJ this report highlights the need for a greater commitment to resourcing for the NPS alongside greater scrutiny and policing of the contracts. Variations in the CRCs’ performance risks a postcode lottery of probation services across England and Wales and reduced business could see CRCs cutting costs even further as they prioritise commercial interests over reducing re-offending. We hope that CRCs will take heed of our professional input to maintain professional standards.”

    It is of concern that 2 CRCs have been financially penalised just 12 months into the contracts’ operational period. The MoJ must provide better performance data to evidence that providers are being held to account and provide value for money whilst also reducing re-offending.


    Editors notes:

    Approximately 1500 jobs have been lost or are “at risk” in CRCs owned by 5 of the providers. These are Sodexo, Working Links, RRP, Durham Tees Valley and Purple Futures

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of Napo... What a dagger to the heart!! Example? "Napo will continue to work with the MoJ".

      Once again, and for the umpteenth time, Napo have looked a gift horse in the mouth and turned a runaway PR triumph into a damp squib. Who's protecting who? They're certainly NOT protecting the workforce; not in Nov 2013, not with EVR, not with caseloads, not with professional standards, etc ad nauseaum.

      Delete
  2. I haven't yet read the blog but have looked at NAPO's response. Forgive me if I sound daft, but to quote- 'lower levels of expected business for the CRC's has resulted in significant job losses across a large number of CRCs.' Am I wrong in interpreting that as meaning, the more offenders they get, doing programmes etc, the more money they are paid? So unlike the public sector- failure is success??

    ReplyDelete
  3. Snakeoil salesmen, the lot of 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shafting of staff, outrageous & dangerous caseloads, profit over professional intervention?

    "The NPS has higher than predicted caseloads and faces a difficult further period of change if it is to play a fully effective role in the transformed and national probation service. Its front-line managers face increasing pressure, including dealing with higher than expected workloads, now of high-risk offenders"

    "CRCs are paid primarily for completing specified activities with offenders rather than for reducing reoffending, which also risks hindering innovative practice."

    "CRCs delivering resettlement services in prisons have been focused on commencing services and meeting contractual measures based on completing processes, rather than on service quality,"

    "Completing the procurement in a challenging timetable, combined with uncertainties arising from the concurrent changes in the probation system, limited bidders’ understanding of their exposure to business risk."

    In their own words. Its an utter disgrace & Grayling's lies & deceit are being exposed, but excuses and mitigation remain.

    Lets have some justice & accountability.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pina Colada here.
    Not looking at this too closely but

    6 23% of service users note things have got worse, they are particularly upset with housing employment and having to repeat themselves

    7 Data collection is inaccurate and difficult to gather making it difficult to see how successful this has been, there will be no re-offending data for at least 8 months.

    8 Contracts are tightly controlled in the CRC but the CRC are kicking back, the NPS has not got a clue what it is contracted to do.

    9 The two organisations have conflicting objectives and are bickering with each other and pointing fingers.

    10 NPS are over worked now, CRC will be once they have laid off enough staff to make a profit.

    11 IT systems are a joke, inefficient, late and not fit for the job.

    12 Phew some how the wheels did not come off..Lets give em a gong. There is a lot of rubbish we kicked into the long grass and the bidders did not have a clue what they were buying. Lets hope we have bought enough time. Fingers crossed.

    13 We got our split numbers wrong meaning that the CRC's have not got enough work to make a profit from. If one of them gives the contract back WE ARE FUCKED.

    14 Payment by results. See the bit about long grass at 12. Also Innovation...we were joking. Lets put some guff in here about fees for service "Incentivise" is that a word? who cares the policy wonks like it.

    15 The NPS, too many cases, managers drowning, systems in flux, lots of inconsistent policies inherited. We have a change programme, somewhere over there in the field.

    16 Through the gate...Well on track..Sorry cannot keep this up, its a mess, we have a thing called "Through the Gate" in the prisons but what it is, how it works and when it will make a difference, who knows.

    17 Voluntary sectors, well come on that was just bid candy. Sadly they all seemed to see that we had just put lipstick on the pig and they laughed and left. Never mind the boss was able to stand up and talk about it and in any event we were always going to sell it off to the french and the yanks Brexit anyone?

    18 Well we got away with it so far. It did not fall completely to bits. Lets give the credit to the staff at NOMS not the idiots with vocations who kept the show on the road while we shafted them all (Sorry people but this is me and I do have a reputation to uphold PC)

    19 But you know we are not out of the woods and it will just take something we have buried to start to smell and we are fucked.

    a You know the problems with this are exacerbated by the fact that it was rushed and done half arsed to a stupid timetable. But hey we got away with it. Please take more care from now on. (Key point with any report is that the most difficult to understand sentence is the one where they are trying to cover up something)


    b Ask the CRCs what they need in order to stay the course. If they leave WE ARE FUCKED

    c GIVE THE CRCs MORE MONEY

    d Reform the NPS and for gods sake sort their IT and back office.

    e The best way to ensure CRC buy in is to give them more money and less oversight. Cannot see a problem with this it worked so well with the SERCO tagging contract.

    f Try and count things monthly, if we are constantly updating our numbers then we appear to be doing more work.

    g When giving more money to the CRC (see c above) say its for innovation.


    That is what I got from that document. They have managed to write up " We avoided total disaster" as this is a great success.

    Its like Dunkirk, we get 300k soldiers off the beach but not a single gun, no tanks and no artillery. The Germans ran us into the sea in six weeks and knocked out our major European Ally. But when you read the reports its all plucky little boats and British grit and stiff upper lip.

    Be ready though from now on this will be used to counter any suggestion that anything is less than rosy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Love the comments above - i hadnt seen them and i had done the same thing but not as funny as yours!
    To précis the above for those too busy to read it all:
    Key findings
    6 service users still not getting the support they need.
    7 it appears 7/19 targets are being met (wow nearly 50%)
    Meeting current operational challenges:
    CRC pursuing monetary incentives and there is little co operation between NPS and CRC
    10. Workloads still high
    11 ICT systems not effective
    12 there were not as many bidders as expected (apparently only cronies of previous or current Ministers)
    13 CRC volume of clients much lower than expected ( how does this tally with 10 above?)
    14 the CRCs are paid for completion of largely pointless activities, rather than focusing on reducing re offending (CRCs love programmes and UPW as this brings in the most money)
    15 the NPS are struggling
    16 TTG is not coming up with any new solutions for resettlement
    The voluntary sector are not being involved as forecast pre TR

    Conclusion this project was poorly thought through, not trialed and needs to be scrapped

    ReplyDelete
  7. Given people have lost their jobs when originally shafted to CRC by Noms who then decided they were surplus to requirements,don't you think there might be a few cases of constructive dismissal or the like here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was always an argument for constructive dismissal by Noms/MoJ - independent legal advice from an employment law barrister last year indicated I could take a viable case with a good chance of winning BUT... that I'd need to be able to survive on fresh air for a protracted period (i.e. years) as the multinationals have dedicated teams who stall employment tribunal work to starve out complainants. I have a family. If I was a singleton I might have given it a go, but I chickened out.

      Delete
    2. The union should have taken a test case through court. It only had to prove one case. That's what any other union would have done and has done in past disputes. Too many people feathering their own nest.

      Delete
    3. Absolutely agree with this point.

      Delete
  8. Question! If a stand alone tag associated with a SSO, has been AWOL since 21\12\2015, but not picked up by police, despite best efforts of NPS PO,are Capita being paid? Tag\service user not responding, equipment check done in December and no faults detected! Client still at the address, but police not interested in pursuing him, Capita relatively silent!
    Oh, Purple Futures now changed their name- it's now Interserve Justice! Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36160581

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some probation staff monitoring offenders in England and Wales are handling more than 70 cases at a time.
      The figure is contained in a National Audit Office report about the government's reforms to the probation system, introduced in 2014. It says high workloads have "reduced" the supervision and training that staff receive and the service they provide.
      The Ministry of Justice said the new probation system was "continually improving".

      Government changes have seen the probation service split in two, with Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) supervising low and medium-risk offenders and a new National Probation Service (NPS) taking over the supervision of high-risk offenders. The report said the NPS was "not yet operating as a truly national, sustainable" service and was under-performing in 11 of 18 target levels. It also found CRCs were not achieving their targets in 12 of 19 measures where "robust" data were available.

      Two of the 21 CRCs, which are run by private and voluntary sector organisations, had £78,000 deducted from them in total by the Ministry of Justice for failing to meet their targets on the completion of community sentence orders.

      The report, which also found "severe" problems with IT systems, said "fundamental issues" needed to be resolved before the new arrangements were capable of achieving value for money. "The NPS has higher than predicted caseloads and faces a difficult further period of change if it is to play a fully effective role in the transformed and national probation service," the National Audit Office says. "Its front-line managers face increasing pressure, including dealing with higher than expected workloads, now of high-risk offenders, while assimilating a heavy influx of trainees, who will take time to become fully effective professionals."

      A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Major transitions in public services are always challenging but figures show the performance of the new probation system, introduced only a year ago, is continually improving. "As the report notes, the majority of offenders found that services had remained stable or improved since our reforms. Thanks to these reforms, offenders in prison for less than 12 months are now receiving support from the probation service for the very first time. "However, we are not complacent and are addressing the problems which have been identified. Public protection is our top priority and we will continue to support staff to deliver these important changes."

      Delete
    2. What about the huge increase in violent crime that correlates with TR??

      Delete
  10. BGSW and DDC managers learned yesterday that Working Links have had to take out a bank loan in order to be able to afford to put their "transformation" into place

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What transformation at bgsw crc? Do you know what they plan to do with the money? This sounds to me like they are taking out a loan to stay afloat and keep operating and paying salaries. I did hear a similar rumour this morning. It went something like this. 'I hear working links are in the shit financially". Me. 'Really?' Another colleague. 'No shit, sherlock'.'so what's going to happen?''dunno, can't be arsed worrying, i have 3 oasys, 4 breach reports, 5 intel checks , covering for colleages off on sick and the phone keeps ringing'. Meanwhile someone in i.t is having their leaving do in the corner of our open an office. Stuff cotton wool in one ear and carry on talking to person on phone! Harold pinter eat your heart out. Yours truly. Waiting for godot!

      Delete
  11. I am 'transformed' , HAlleluya i have seen the light, my sins are cast away, i am saved, all hail TR, i have been cured, worship TR and you will never go hungry again! ( RIGHT, JOB DONE, WHERE IS MY F-ING BONUS? '

    ReplyDelete
  12. "... significantly lower levels of business than the Ministry projected will affect some CRCs’ ability to deliver the level of innovation they proposed in their bids."

    In other words the service provided by CRC's is shite!


    "... the NPS is not yet operating as a truly national, sustainable service."

    And the solution is to replace Probation Officers with unqualified staff!

    ReplyDelete
  13. You only need to read as far as the BBC headlines which nicely cuts through the rubbish.....


    Some probation staff monitoring offenders in England and Wales are handling more than 70 cases at a time.

    The figure is contained in a National Audit Office report about the government's reforms to the probation system, introduced in 2014.

    It says high workloads have "reduced" the supervision and training that staff receive and the service they provide.

    The Ministry of Justice said the new probation system was "continually improving".

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36160581

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is all lies. TR is a raving success

    ReplyDelete
  15. The question you have to ask yourself is; who gives a toss about Reports like these? The answer is no-one. Already the spin doctors at the MOJ and NOMS are making their mealy-mouthed excuses. No journalist will look in any detail at what this means until the s**t hits the fan and then some poor little PO or PSO will be hung out to dry while the bastards responsible for this head for the hiils.

    ReplyDelete
  16. How can we complain about our union I've had it up to my neck with the bloody corrupt actions of Ian Lawrence. Who is he working for because its not the members ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ian is our king. Give respect knob head

      Delete
  17. TR is a safe as houses.plus our bosses have our back so dont worry

    ReplyDelete
  18. Individual with significant concerns, no phone needs psr. The office local to the court doesn't provide psrs as result of TR. He has to travel 20 miles to next office. Given appt & travel warrant (probably in contravention of some shiney new innovative policy). I'm explaining what he needs to while tears are pouring down his face asking "will I be safe are they going to kill me". I'm fed up with the lies, the chaos, the loss of good colleagues. Our area used to work well. This is a hidden disgrace. TR doesn't work - breaking apart a service which only operates well when communication is efficient and effective is destined for trouble. TR is a money making scam nothing more. It's a contradiction in terms.The split is a gaping wound.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Very strange that on the same day TR is outed as a failure;

    Paul Senior was at Sheffield lecturing on the future of probation.

    Shad Maruna was at Newbold Revel lecturing prisons and probation on the future of desistance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry, but why is that strange?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the point is that NOMS and the Probation Institute put on these events when the elephant in the room is that TR pitched probation squarely against all the good practice being advocated.

      Delete
  21. The elephants have all been asset stripped and sold off along time ago!

    ReplyDelete