Thursday 14 December 2017

Inspector Signals End of TR 2

The Howard League for Penal Reform has responded to the Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation, published today (Thursday 14 December):-

Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: 


“The government’s mishandled Transforming Rehabilitation programme was supposed to turn lives around, reduce reoffending and make us all safer. Instead, it has been a public safety disaster, and today’s report is a sober, sensible and quietly devastating verdict on the reform programme. It is also a large and rusty nail in its coffin.

“Breaking up the public probation service, with a large part of it handed to private companies, created a fragmented, two-tier system that was never going to work. As the Chief Inspector has made clear, the problems stretch far beyond worries about funding; this is a fatally flawed model.

“The so-called ‘community rehabilitation companies’ are failing the public. Many are not commissioning the range of specialist services that are needed. Some people do not even meet their probation worker face-to-face, but instead get supervised by phone calls every six weeks or so by junior professional staff carrying workloads of 200 cases or more.

“Each of these woeful developments could be foreseen and was foreseen. The Howard League gave warning time and time again that this would happen. It is time for the government to end this dangerous experiment and recreate a single, successful, probation service using the best from the system we used to have.”

--oo00oo--

Call to end dysfunctional probation privatisation

Richard Garside, Director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies today (Thursday, 14 December 2017) commented on a damning annual report by the Chief Inspector of Probation, Dame Glenys Stacey. He said:

"This really grim report will come as little surprise to those who warned the government against its ill-conceived privatisation of probation prior to the 2015 General Election. Nor will it surprise those who have followed with concern the serious decline in probation work since then.

So dysfunctional have the government's probation changes become that active sabotage would look much the same. Whatever the government's original intentions, its changes to the probation system have not worked. The government now needs to be as determined in remedying the problems in the probation system as it was in creating them in the first place.

It should launch an open and inclusive review of the current arrangements as soon as possible, seeking the views of a range of stakeholders, including: the private probation companies and their sub-contractors, staff representatives, voluntary and community sector providers and independent researchers and policy analysts.

In the longer-term, the government should draw a line under the mistakes of the past and commit to placing probation on a coherent and sustainable footing. This will probably involve ending the failed privatisation experiment and reestablishing a unified, public sector probation service, organised locally and coordinated nationally."

Richard comments were covered this morning in The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Independent, among other places.


--oo00oo--

Finally, Rob Allen had this to say on his Unlocking Potential blog site:- 

Probation - The Shape of Things to Come?

The Chief Inspector of Probation's Annual Report published today may not be the nail in the coffin of Transforming Rehabilitation – the 2014 reforms which have fundamentally changed the way offenders are supervised in the community. But it probably marks the start of the reading of the last rites for an ill conceived and hastily implemented programme designed, but failing, to improve the punishment and reform of offenders.

In one sense there’s little new in the report. The media focus may be on the tens of thousands of low risk offenders supervised via a short six weekly phone call but the new system’s many other shortcomings, particularly those of the privately owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) have already been highlighted in individual inspection reports. Whether it’s individuals turned away from poorly organised unpaid work sites, rehabilitation programmes requiring little of offenders, or the supposed flagship “Through the Gate" services reduced to little more than form filling, the aggregate picture is not pretty. It not only bitterly disappoints those of us who want to see effective community sentences replace the unnecessary and damaging use of prison. It confirms the worst fears of hard liners who argue that probation puts the public in danger by failing to assess and manage risks properly.

There are oases of good CRC practice noted in Kent, Cumbria, South Yorkshire, West Mercia and Durham - and the publicly run National Probation Service (NPS) seems to be doing an acceptable job. But the titbits of praise in the report are seldom unqualified. Courts might be getting timely pre-sentence reports from the NPS but recommendations for suitable people to undertake accredited treatment programmes as part of their community sentence have plummeted. Contrary to what’s sometimes thought, probation staff are not over-eager to return non-compliant offenders to court and most breach decisions are taken wisely. The problem is the reverse with case management so weak that CRCs "may not know when enforcement is called for".

All in all, 18 months’ worth of data has left Chief Inspector Dame Glenys Stacey with no option but to conclude, as was widely predicted at the outset, that “regrettably none of the government’s stated aspirations for Transforming Rehabilitation have been met in any meaningful way”.

What is new is that Dame Glenys today openly questions “whether the current model for probation can deliver sufficiently well”. It’s one thing to find fault with the performance of probation services up and down the country - but quite another to call into question whether the fundamental way those services have been arranged is fit for purpose. Implicitly or explicitly, the report blasts the split between the NPS and CRCs which sees organisations compete for staff and haggle over the provision of and payments for specialist services for offenders; and the funding model which has left CRCs with way less cash than they anticipated, forcing them to pare down staff numbers repeatedly and leaving some remaining junior staff with caseloads of 200 plus. She is certainly worried that the sweeping aside of national standards in the name of innovation has allowed not only large amounts of remote supervision but some face to face interviews to be conducted in places lacking privacy. Dame Glenys must wonder too about the way that the performance monitoring framework developed by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service gives the debacle the Inspectorate describes a largely clean bill of health.

In truth, this quietly devastating report makes it clear that all of these dimensions need to be changed. And knowingly or not, it may suggest how. In their 140 odd Youth Justice Inspections, the Inspectorate found that Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) perform to a good level and "can be rightly proud of the work they do". These local authority based multi-agency teams, developed in Tony Blair’s first term, partly in response to a damning critique from the Audit Commission, have by and large proved an effective model for diverting young people from crime, from prosecution and from custody.

This is surely the sort of approach we now need for adults. There’s scope for discussion about the role Police and Crime Commissioners might play in any new system and whether Adult Offending Teams should form part of a broader devolution of justice responsibilities and budgets to a more local, and locally accountable, level. But we have plenty of time to have that discussion.

The current probation arrangements may have to limp on for three years but there is nothing to prevent serious work on succession arrangements to begin next year. Justice Secretary David Lidington should establish some form of inquiry or commission to look dispassionately at what to do next. He may want to see what the Justice Committee comes up with in its investigation first. But one thing is certain. The future shape of probation services must not be driven by the ideological dogmas which have brought them down to the sorry level we see today.


Rob Allen

23 comments:

  1. Once you remove the relationship between probation officer and client you effectively leave the client on something akin to bail. Report to whoever and comply with conditions. It's a model the privateers favour because you can process volume. But that model would work if the client was to sign on at the local police station once a week.
    But that model achieves nothing, no problem solving, no needs met, and no rehabilitation component whatsoever.
    It's taken a couple of years now to shape probation services into what they are today since TR. It's dismal, unproductive and costly. Everyone and his dog says TR has failed, it has no supporters at all anymore.
    Pull the plug!

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My SPO still thinks it's wonderful

      Delete
  2. The reality is, senior management in London CRC simply do not care about engagement of service users.

    There is a pure focus on data tick boxing exercises.

    There complete and utter contempt to both Staff and Service Users highlighted by closure of local offices.

    Harrow CRC closes on 4th January. They will be re-located in the borough of Barnet. During meeting with Senior management and Head of Estates, corners were raised regarding endgame of service users. These concerns being the impact of distance now being enforced. Concerns about partnership engagement. Service Users effectively being set up to fail. The response?

    ‘If you have to do more breaches, what’s the problem?’ - Head of Estates.

    Concerning liaising with partnership agencies surrounding the move:

    ‘Make contact with them and see what they say’. Senior Manager. Sorry, but shouldn’t this be overseen by senior management? Should this not have formed part of the move on plan?

    At some point, the penny will drop. We manage people. Not numbers. Soon, if things continue as they are, something major will happen. Soon, one of the executive managers will actually have to face the music.

    Maybe, just maybe, they should engage with staff with experience. With knowledge. With ideas. With passion. With a bloody backbone and listen. Rather than employing yes men / women. Maybe then, some positive changes could be made to actually have a half decent service to offer.

    BIONIC. Please. They should all be ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will the service users get bus tickets ? I know this will not solve things necessarily, but what has been decided about transport costs?

      Delete
  3. 12:46 You need to feed your concerns to the unions especially when you get statements from senior managers such as the Head of Estates who is paid a tidy sum to deal with all aspects of the move liaising with other department heads. If concerns are not addressed then staff need to do a group grievance. Don’t just moan about it after it’s happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reality is, us staff were only notified after the move had been confirmed. A meeting was held with an ACO and Head of Estates. All our queries and general concerns were dismissed. Head of Estates even said, and I quote - ‘...if you can find an office space in Harrow, I’ve got £50,000 for rent. Go and find me an office, it’s not a problem’. Again, isn’t that what he is paid to do?

      The will has been lost by staff. Unions rarely have any weight now. Our ACO’s message is basically put up and shut up.

      All we have is a bog standard leaflet - with no real information - to hand out to service users. Still yet to receive any info about our displacement allowance.

      If only our SPO was not signed of - she would have fought our cause.

      Delete
    2. 12.57. What makes you thing staff haven't done this already? Abit judgmental of you to say that. In my CRC group complaints and grievances have gone in. And the response? Absolutely zero. We have also repeatedly gone to Napo and passed on evidence of all the failings and problems. Presumably once the time is ripe..I suggest that is now...Napo take legal action through the courts.

      Delete
    3. Where is Napo? My emails are ignored, my calls go unanswered. I've met the Unison rep at our office in the last 12 months and not a peep from our CRC chair.

      Delete
  4. I fear it will take a change of Government to make the necessary changes even though it is plainly obvious that Probation needs defragging. I believe that the present government is so wedded to its ideological world view of private sector and markets ultimately delivering rather than thoughtful mixed economy provision of services that it would be like a stake through a vampirish heart for them to about turn. TR in my opinion will, when it finally draws its last breath, be known as the lost years, a horrible hiatus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will take a change of government before things change, but that could be closer then you think.
      Whenever the Tories go, it'll be a long time before they are back.

      Delete
    2. Did you watch Question Time yesterday? The 'Brexit' Posse are beyond reason. They will vote for anyone as long as they get rid of Johnny Foreigner. Rational debate is no longer encouraged.

      Delete
  5. No it was predicted from 2013 Anon at 13.08.

    Do not let anyone deceive you about that.

    Once we knew there was to be a ridiculous local split of Probation Service Employers in every area and classification into higher, medium and low risk supervisees it was obvious to probation practitioners the proposals were doomed.

    We just did not know how it would fail or exactly when.

    I am surprised that the media and HM Parliament allowed it to reach this far without sustained exposure, challenges to the Government and alternative proposals being made by the Labour Party and Welsh Nationalists and Greens in England and Wales.

    Liberal Democrats are excluded because they actively supported the nonsense and danger.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Please end it now, take note of what the inspectors are saying. I am already suffering from PTSD for having been shafted into the CRC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hope you are ok 19.21. I went through that at work pre TR and it is an awful condition. I am ok now. Well, I have definite work related stress and some anxiety but no ptsd currently. I couldn't go through that again but it does help me relate to my service users, about 20% of whom have or have had ptsd as a result of trauma. For me it took a long break from probation to deal with this. If it started again I would likely have to leave. Hope you are getting some good support from someone who understands this condition.

      Delete
  7. At the time it was pointed out that once split, it would be impossible to put back together. All that experience gone, lost forever,at the behest of a halfwit supported to sycophants & fools.That, my friends, is the real tragedy

    ReplyDelete
  8. I know Hugh. It is a shameful and sad state of affairs in BGSW CRC..We have been hung out to dry. If only John Wiseman would acknowledge the mess we are in and show some empathy rather than continuing with his delusional beliefs. The system is broken and we need a leader who is prepared to speak out and say that on behalf of staff and service users.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Shouldn't all staff sifted into the crcs be claiming unfair dismissal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Constructive dismissal - group action over sifting then loss of employment.

      Delete
    2. I feel so angry.
      It's an interesting point because there is certainly differential treatment as a result and the staff reductions were foreseen even if a lot of staff seemed reluctant to believe it would happen. One of the big issues for me is that my former colleagues in the NPS who like me are looking towards getting out of the hustle and bustle of London and heading back to where they regard as home can do so via a transfer to that area. If you work in the CRC you have to apply for work for another company and then you are treated as a new employee and are on different terms and conditions that are less favourable. I don't know anyone who has got a good deal taking into consideration their training and experience. They don't want you and if you as for an equivalent salary my experience is that they laugh in your face and say they have no money. This is a far cry from what was said to staff prior to the split who in some cases opted for the CRC because they thought their would be opportunities to earn more or get money that recognised their particular skills or experience. In particular I have had a long conversation with CRC HR boss who wondered why I had not ever progressed beyond PO grade after 40 years. I asked her would she ask the same of her GP or Dentist and she said that was different. So instead of spending your twilight years in the service on reasonable money in an area you wish to reestablish yourself in and retire to (all things we know that will lead to a happier and longer life) and retiring after 40 years with good grace you end up struggling and moving after you retire which is very stressful. I sometimes get the impression that if you are over 50 and male in the CRC then you are seen as past your sell by date. If they offered EVR to the over 50s tomorrow then there would be a stampede just as there was in the prison service when they stepped up privatisation. I feel worn out because I have worked so hard over decades through thick and thin and there is no let up. I have seen my salary decrease in real terms year on year. I really feel us older probation staff have had the very worst deal every time. If I hear the words 'things are set to improve' one more time I swear they will have to arrest me before I throttle the perpetrator. No disrespect to some of the still wet behing the ears graduates they are now bringing in as PSOs many of whom want to be POs and want to learn from the 'Old Crocs' as we are no doubt affectionately known in our office but they are not getting the depth of training that they need to undertake the work they are being asked to perform. When I read Dame Glenyss report i am appalled and i am also appalled at the sloppiness around at the moment where it is evident that very few people chose to work for or would choose to work for and dont actually want to work for the people they now find themselves working for. Thie heart isn't in it and they do their best for the offenders but just spend all the time doing admin that even the managers tell us is pointless. Most days I go in I curse the senior managers to burn in whatever waking hell they believe in that will consist of them being prevented from working in the way they want with no prospect of it ending and forced to type 24 hours a day until they drop only to be revived and start again. however the reality is most of them can look forward to a nice early retirement on a nice enhanced package that will enable them to go where they want and forget all about the profession and the lives they destroyed.

      Delete
    3. In response to Anon at 11.00

      I "burnt out" when I was 53 after almost 30 years in 2003, a hidden neurological disability (unrecognised until I was 50) and addiction was involved and changed job demands and management practices as well,

      I have read what you write and commiserate.

      We, especially officers of my era did not have the zeal for training and professional recognition that our predecessors had, they were far better supported by lay magistrates of whom many of my era were contemptuous.

      Ultimately I hope you find a peaceful retirement, it seems well-earned.

      Delete
  10. AS an ex SPO, I would consider coming back to a unified Probation Service only if a, the private sector were involved and b, I would start on the salary scale at the point where I was when I was 'severed' (i.e. the top of the scale). Than, and only then, they can have access to my experience and knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I meant if the private sector weren't involved. I was spellchecked into a job with SODEXO ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. 11.00. You are selling yourself short. Some CRC's are desperate for experienced staff and would pay over the odds to get you. Let's face it, if they can afford agency staff to fill posts then they can afford you. Inhave heard of staff coming back in getting top of the PO payscale. Why not sign on with an agency and look for work outside of London? There are unfilled posts all over the place and someone on this blig was offered agency work doing OASYS reports in a piece work rate= per report. The trick is to know your worth and be prepared to move on if you are not being treated well. Are you SW qualified? That will bring other options too within YOS. You would be surprised what opportunities ARE out there if you take the brave step of moving on and negotiating a fair deal.

    ReplyDelete