Nail Hit On Head

Regular readers will be well aware that this blog has had its highs and lows over the years. We've gone down many wonderful and varied avenues, pretty much dictated by you the reader and contributor. Despite my best endeavours as editor, I'm never quite sure what the direction of travel will be each day, but of course that's the very nature of probation isn't it? There will be ups and downs; joy and disappointment; success and failure, because every person is unique both in character and circumstance. 

So it is that during what I hope might be a discussion on how probation might be saved under a new government, regular reader 'Getafix throws in what might appear to be an innocuous and idle question:- 

How exactly does anyone "manage" someone else's offending behaviour?

"A misnomer to perpetuate a charade. I suspect it’s used to offer an assurance to the public that Probation has the necessary wherewithal to combat offending. When, as we know that is just an illusion. I suspect it sounds better than stumbling in the dark and generally hoping for the best. All staff really manage is trying to get home at a reasonable time and not whittling about the next SFO. The rest is just pseudo science and management flimflam."

*****
"According to Chatgpt posted on X managing offending behaviour involves imprisonment of more people and increasing the salaries of senior leaders when they fail. Mischief managed."

*****
"One doesn't...well this one doesn't. Manage your managers (good luck with that one), your own expectations, and endeavour to get some love and practical help in through the cracks."

*****
"This is the delusional thread currently running through probation work. It’s dangerous and conceited that probation officers are made to believe they risk assess and risk manage to “protect the public”. Signing up to this nonsense means we are laying ourselves wide open to be blamed for every person on probation that reoffends. Trying to “manage” every person means every failure is a failure of that “management”. Probation work is about helping people to change for the better. People change when they feel ready, not because a probation officer demanded it, not because of an accredited programme, not because of what’s written in case records. When they do change it’s because of what they did, not what we did. People change because they receive support, consistency and access to opportunities, everything an understaffed and crumbling probation enforcement agency cannot provide."

I've posted both of the extensive responses above on Twitter or X in new money and they've gained a huge amount of attention from possibly what is a much wider audience than is usual here, mostly I suspect because it strikes a chord with many people, some no doubt clients both current and historical; but also probation staff both new and old who 'get' what probation should be about, but know it's hopelessly lost its way and especially since the takeover by HM Prison Service and the dead hand of the civil service. 

I have to say I'm very heartened by the response to the question posed by 'Getafix because what it says to me is that, despite the best endeavours of HMPPS thought police, recusants are still out there and haven't all retired or been driven out by other means. In fact am I to dare to hope the penny is dropping amongst some newer recruits that the job could be done much better and more usefully by listening and learning about it how used to be, and still is in many parts of the world. The sad thing is, probation as practised in England and Wales used to be regarded as an exemplar - was the Gold Standard remember?! - but is now effectively an outlier to the bewilderment of other criminal justice jurisdictions worldwide.  

--oo00oo-- 

As an interesting aside to the above, I was struck by the following posted on Twitter yesterday by someone who had clearly been through the criminal justice system:-

"I know it goes against the grain, but if prisoners were treated better in prison and by society upon release, would the level of repeat offending be as high?"

As the current government gleefully runs up the flagpole the callous notion of removing all benefits from claimants who remain unemployed for more than 18 months for any reason,  doesn't that mournful enquiry say so much about the society we've become......

Jobs News

This from Facebook:-
News from a CRC:

• Performance Delivery Manager. New name for an SPO. (At least it isn't PIM or POM)
• 'The details will be confirmed as part of the consultation process'. Consultation vs Confirmed? Oxymoron?
• Probation Practitioner. Anyone who supervises a Service User. This will replace the terms Probation Officer, Offender Manager, Case Manager and Probation Service Officer. This may also be referred to as ‘Responsible Officer’, as per the legal definition.
• Role boundaries? In your dreams.
• Community Support Worker: A (newly invented) paid position, CSWs are involved with the delivery of Service User rehabilitation activities and support as part of Reducing Reoffending Teams. They will have a major role in promoting engagement, undertaking assertive outreach with Service Users with the most complex needs.
• Finally for now: Biometric technology will support automated step down reporting as Service Users approach the end of their order.

David A Raho in response:-

It has been suggested elsewhere that we continue to sign our correspondence PO PSO SPO as per employment contract and in addition start listing professional qualifications. In order to preserve our professional status including designations we need a recognised professional body that registers our qualifications courses etc as CPD. It was hoped that the Probation Institute would perform this role in the same way as the Institute for Learning does. Unfortunately the Probation Institute got a bad press (mainly due to Grayling dishonestly attempting to take credit for its establishment) and continues to be unfairly maligned and undermined and weakened by a small number of very vocal critics who have failed to recognise its potential importance to our profession. 

I would encourage anyone concerned about their professional status and probation as a profession to join the PI in addition to NAPO (who are a professional association) who recognise the Probation Institute as aspiring to be a centre of professional excellence including all those with an interest and/or involvement in probation including academics, leaders, politicians, voluntary sector etc. Some of us have been calling for a PI for years and now we have one we need to join it and support it. http://probation-institute.org/membership/

--oo00oo--

BTW Jim, no blog on the NPS people survey yet? It's a shocker. Three quarters of NPS staff unhappy with pay, career progression and training and with the ability of the centre to run the service. Tiny confidence that their voice will be heard if they speak out and a fear of doing so. Shockingly, 25% of the respondents in one LDU say they want out in the next 12 months. These kind of numbers in a private sector organisation would prompt shareholder panic, changes at the top and some proper reform to ensure profitability. What will the NPS do? Probably nothing If the survey is anything to go by. Very few respondents believe action will be taken on the results. Don't get me started on bullying numbers. They're shocking too. Come on Jim and NAPO and UNISON make some hay with this.

--oo00oo--

Hi Jim,

I know several PO's who are withdrawing their applications for NPS because the salary they are being offered is back at the bottom of the pay scale. So, NPS would rather continue to pay £25-£30 per hour to a temp (not to mention recruitment agency fees) than take back PO's who were shafted in to CRC in the first place. All the way along through the recruitment process no one has been 'able' to confirm salary and then when offered job after all the slaver and costs involved in interviewing and disclosure processes, you get told the salary is at the bottom of the scale! Told to make a business case for going in at current salary, but it gets rejected. It's a farce and an insult!

--oo00oo--

Meanwhile, there are currently 60 PSO NPS jobs being advertised in the North West:-

Job description
Postholders will undertake the full range of offender management tasks for cases including assessment, sentence implementation and producing reports in accordance with National Standards, the Probation policies and key performance objectives of the National Probation Service. Postholders will report to a Senior Probation Officer or equivalent line manager.

The National Probation Service is seeking to employ a number of Probation Services Officers for positions across various delivery units in the North West (Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire). Successful candidates will be deployed in Offender Management Units undertaking challenging and rewarding work facilitating the rehabilitation and risk management of offenders in order to protect victims and communities from harm.

These positions can be based at any NPS location within the North West Region. Further information will be provided at interview. Probation Services Officers may be required to undertake any combination, or all, of the duties and responsibilities set out below. 

• To undertake the full range of offender management tasks with offenders assessed as low or medium risk of harm. 
• To use the NPS computer based systems to produce records and other documentation within agreed timescales as required 
• To review Oasys, assessing the risks and needs of offenders for whom the post holder is the offender manager and complete within appropriate timescales. 
• Where the post holder is the offender manager, to work collaboratively with colleagues and providers of interventions and to implement and review sentence plans in an effective and timely manner. 
• To monitor and review plans to ensure they remain “fit for purpose”, making amendments as necessary and referring significant changes in risk to the team manager. 
• Ensure effective referrals to and communication with offender management staff, interventions staff, service providers and external agencies to review progress and associated risks. 
• When working under the guidance of a Probation Officer Offender Manager, report observations relating to risk of harm and/or of reoffending or any non-compliance within agreed enforcement procedures. 
• Undertake home and prison visits as required. 
• To be responsible for addressing the risks and needs presented by offenders being managed, for achieving compliance with national standards and requirements in orders and licences and for prompt and effective enforcement and breach. 
• To take breach action, case transfer and case closure using Service procedures as appropriate. 
• To work and engage with the offender, to promote change and to ensure they understand the links between all the relevant interventions. To facilitate the offender’s understanding of the links between the different interventions; help the offender make the links between new learning and their day-to-day environment; seek to ensure offender practices new skills and behaviours and habitualises new behaviours in their own environment. 
• To undertake work in the court setting, including the completion of appropriate bail information reports, oral reports on cases and prosecution of breaches. 
• To provide cover within the offender management unit and to other offender management units as appropriate. 
• Demonstrate pro-social modelling skills by consistently reinforcing pro-social behaviour and attitudes, challenge anti-social behaviour and attitudes. 
• Participate in quality assurances processes as required and jointly take responsibility within supervision and appraisal process for own professional development. 
• To promote diversity and anti-discriminatory practice to all service users and staff in line with National Probation Service policies. 
• To ensure all activities are conducted in accordance with Health & Safety Policies and procedures. 
• Maintain and ensure safe storage and usage of data, service property and equipment. 
• To undertake any other duties with appropriate support which are commensurate with the grading of the post. 

The duties/responsibilities listed above describe the post as it is at present and is not intended to be exhaustive. The Job holder is expected to accept reasonable alterations and additional tasks of a similar level that may be necessary. Significant adjustments may require re-examination under Job Evaluation and shall be discussed in the first instance with the Job Holder.

Qualifications
ESSENTIAL
Minimum 5 GCSE’s at Grade C or above, including English

DESIRABLE
Relevant Degree:
- Criminology or Applied Criminology
- Community Justice
- Criminal Justice or Police Studies
- A combined honours degree where at least 50% is in one of the above titles and combined with Social Science or Law will also be accepted as relevant

Experience
ESSENTIAL

• Experience of working with a diverse range of people who have experienced a range of social/personal difficulties 
• Understanding of factors related to offending e.g. substance misuse, accommodation issues 
• Understanding of, and commitment to the principles of case management.
• Knowledge and understanding of risk management/risk assessment as pertaining to offenders. 
• Experience in planning and coordinating work. 
• Understanding of Health & Safety legislation in the workplace. 
• An understanding of and commitment to equal opportunities and diversity good practice. 
• Knowledge and understanding of the work of the Criminal Justice System and Probation Service 
• Experience of working with groups or individuals in order to motivate and change behaviour 
• Knowledge of the aims and objectives of the Probation Service 

Competencies
You will be asked to supply evidence of meeting these competencies when you apply.

Making effective decisions
Changing and improving
Caring
Collaborating and partnering
Persuading and influencing 

Security
If you are a successful candidate you will be expected to undertake Basic Checks.

Reserved status
This is a Non Reserved post and is therefore open to UK, British Commonwealth and European Economic Area (EEA) Nationals and certain non EEA members

Working for the Civil Service
The Civil Service embraces diversity and promotes equality of opportunity. Applications from the UK Reserve Forces are welcome, as we aspire to be a model employer of those who serve their country. We also offer a guaranteed interview scheme (GIS) for disabled applicants who meet our minimum selection criteria. We will not tolerate any form of discrimination.

Commissioner's statement
The Civil Service recruits by merit on the basis of fair and open competition as outlined in the Civil Service Commission’s Recruitment Principles.

School leaving age statement
Candidates will be subject to UK school leaving age legislation.

Sift/interview dates and location to be confirmed.

Further information
Public Interest Transfer and detached duty terms do not apply. The successful candidates will be required to meet the cost of transfer at their own expense. If you are a current Civil Servant or employee of a CRC, this vacancy may be available on a Loan/Secondment basis for up to 2 years. Applications are invited from suitable qualified staff. The Loan/Secondment is subject to the approval of the selected candidate's Business Unit, which should be obtained before confirmation of appointment.

Gove's Honeymoon Over

As Harold Wilson once famously said, 'a week's a long time in politics'. Michael Gove went from the darling of penal reformers to pariah in less than four days. Having wowed the throng at the Howard League on Thursday, he was being roundly denounced by them on Monday when this statement was released by the MoJ:-

Prison building revolution announced by Chancellor and Justice Secretary

Chancellor George Osborne and Justice Secretary Michael Gove have today (9 November 2015) unveiled a major new prison reform programme including plans to build 9 new prisons. The radical reforms will ensure Britain’s prison system is fit for purpose in the twenty-first century, and the new prisons will allow the government to close old Victorian prisons in city centres and sell the sites for housing.

This will allow over 3000 new homes to be built, boosting house building in urban areas and helping thousands of working people achieve their dream of owning a home. The Victorian prison site at Reading will be the first to be sold. Around 10,000 prison places will move from outdated sites to the new prisons, significantly improving rehabilitation, and saving around £80 million per year due to the reduced costs of modern facilities.

Chancellor George Osborne said:

"This spending review is about reform as much as it is about making savings. One important step will be to modernise the prison estate. So many of our jails are relics from Victorian times on prime real estate in our inner cities. So we are going to reform the infrastructure of our prison system, building new institutions which are modern, suitable and rehabilitative. And we will close old, outdated prisons in city centres, and sell the sites to build thousands of much-needed new homes.

This will save money, reform an outdated public service and create opportunity by boosting construction jobs and offering more people homes to buy. Five of the new prisons will be open before the end of this parliament. The government will also complete the new prison being built at Wrexham, and expand existing prisons in Stocken and Rye Hill.

Currently half of criminals re-offend within one year of being released, and nearly half of all prisoners go into prison without any qualifications. The Chancellor and Justice Secretary made the announcement ahead of a visit to Brixton prison, a Victorian prison in South London."

Justice Secretary Michael Gove said:

"This investment will mean we can replace ageing and ineffective Victorian prisons with new facilities fit for the modern world. We will be able to design out the dark corners which too often facilitate violence and drug-taking. And we will be able to build a prison estate which allows prisoners to be rehabilitated, so they turn away from crime. It is only through better rehabilitation that we will reduce reoffending, cut crime and make our streets safer."

--oo00oo--

So, despite all the warm words about "helping thousands of working people achieve their dream of owning a home", this statement by the odious George Osborne was as much about a mega-property deal aimed at providing some trendy accommodation for the wealthy in London as it was about any serious attempt at penal reform.

Russell Webster wasn't too keen:-

Is building nine new prisons good news?

WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT ON THE PRISON POPULATION?

Those in the criminal justice field are seeing the announcement in the context of Mr Gove’s recent announcements that as a country we could make less use of prison.

But why do we need to build new prisons if our goal is to reduce the prison population?

In the 15 years between 1993 and 2008, the prison population grew by an average of 4% per year (despite crime falling steadily over the same period.) Surely, we could just reverse this process, send fewer people to prison and close the most out-dated prisons in a methodical, planned way, with the added bonus of garnering extra money for the public purse by selling the land (much of it prime inner city sites) to developers.

Modern prisons are cheaper to run. But that is often if they are super-sized “Titan” prisons like the new one being built at Wrexham. Titan prisons are notoriously difficult to run safely and inevitably mean that the majority of prisoners are held many miles from home, making family ties hard to maintain and resettlement plans difficult to achieve.

The fear of many penal reformers is that we will suffer from a paradoxical “Field of Dreams” scenario:

"If we build it, they will come."

In other words, our history shows that when new prisons are built, sentencers usually ensure that they are too filled with new prisoners while old prisons are not decommissioned at all, resulting in still more people in prison.

--oo00oo--

This from David Raho, Napo London Branch:-
Prison can never be 'fit for purpose' whilst the government does not appear to know what the purpose is. The prisons we have are overcrowded, understaffed, and run down - staff want to be there even less than the prisoners. We simply imprison far too many people needlessly and doing so actually increases the risk to the rest of the public upon their release. An increasing prison population is a sign of a failing justice system that is out of control.

Countries with a more enlightened justice systems are actually reducing their prison populations and putting a great deal of effort into closing their prisons. They invest heavily in rehabilitation and community based options and only use custody as a last resort. This in fact means more money to spend on crime prevention and helping victims too.

Politicians need to grasp the nettle and stop investing in a broken prison system and selling off prison services to revolving door private companies with no motivation to reduce the prison population that has never in fact been tasked to tackle the real causes of offending and learn from those systems that do actually appear to work in concert with a number of other initiatives to help people to lead law abiding lifestyles. That means no more extended fact finding trips by MoJ officials to the US and Canada and perhaps a little more research closer to home in say Sweden or Norway where their approach appears to be far more innovative and humane and incidentally much better value for public money.

--oo00oo--

Here's some highlights from Oliver Wainwright writing in the Guardian on the architecture:- 

Pile 'em high: Britain's £1bn plan to build nine warehouse super-prisons

“The style of architecture of a prison,” states the 1826 Encyclopaedia Londinensis, “offers an effectual method of exciting the imagination to a most desirable point of abhorrence.” Spelling out the principles of good jail design, it goes on to add that “the exterior should, therefore, be formed in the heavy and sombre style, which most forcibly impresses the spectator with gloom and terror”.

You would be forgiven for thinking this was the government’s current guidance on prisons, judging by the £250m “super-prison” currently rising amid a jumble of industrial sheds on the outskirts of Wrexham in north Wales. As the architects’ design statement proudly claims, one of the principal objectives was “to ensure that the design of the proposed prison aligns with the character and appearance of the surrounding industrial estate”. Just as the nearby warehouses have been designed for the stacking and processing of goods, so the super-prison appears to be conceived as a pile-’em-high battery farm for 2,100 inmates. A relentless grid of small square windows will run along the grey walls of the vast accommodation blocks, with cells arranged in long radial corridors around a central hub – in the same way that prisons have been configured since Victorian times.

The historic similarities are poignant, given that Michael Gove, justice secretary and lover of simpler times past, has just announced a £1bn plan to close down inner-city Victorian prisons, sell them off to housing developers and use the money to build nine new super-prisons like the one in Wrexham, to hold a total of 10,000 prisoners. “We will be able to design out the dark corners which too often facilitate violence and drug-taking,” he said, suggesting that architecture might actually have a role to play. This marks an about-turn from his view of school design, a process from which he sought to remove architects entirely when he was education secretary, accusing them of “creaming off cash” with their fancy plans.

But what of Gove’s new fleet of prisons? The Treasury says its “new for old” plan will save £80m a year, suggesting that the new generation of super-prisons will be squeezed to a level of maximum efficiency of which even Jeremy Bentham would be proud. The Victorian reformer’s famous panopticon prison design, never fully realised, proposed to arrange cells in a circle around a central point, allowing a single guard “to survey the whole establishment in the twinkling of an eye”. It would aim to create “the sentiment of an invisible omniscience”, while all the time keeping inmates in lonely isolation, following Bentham’s theory of “reformation through solitude”.

Sadly, his principles seem to be enjoying a resurgence. Wrexham follows hot on the heels of Oakwood prison, another 2,000-capacity behemoth built near Wolverhampton in 2012, also designed around a central point, thereby needing fewer staff to keep an eye on inmates. Offering cut-price incarceration courtesy of private security firm G4S (costing £13,200 an inmate per year, compared to the UK average of more than £31,000), it was plagued by design problems soon after opening. With only a single fence, drugs and phones could be thrown in – indeed, inmates told prison inspectors it was easier to get drugs there than soap.

By prioritising efficiency over rehabilitation, this new generation of bargain-basement holding pens are cutting out crucial spaces. Communal dining rooms are increasingly rare because they require more supervision, so inmates generally eat alone in their cells, giving them fewer opportunities to socialise. Fixtures and fittings are all tamperproof and wipeclean, making the prison environment feel more institutional and less like a normal place. It’s not hard to see how a reduction in staff combined with an increased sense of institutionalisation has led to jails in England and Wales being in their worst state for a decade, with rises in violence, self-harm and staff attacks, according to the chief inspector’s report in July.

--oo00oo--

Thanks to Inside Times and HMI Prisons News, this is what new jails look like, HMP Brinsford:-

Omnishambles on Track

The latest report from HM Probation Inspectorate has just been published and in somewhat under-stated language confirms that the omnishambles is indeed progressing nicely and there's nothing to worry about:- 

Summary and Key Issues 

Assisting sentence and the assignment of cases 

Communication between the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Companies was improving. There appeared to be better liaison concerning the flow of information relating to pre-sentence work. Several of the Local Delivery Units inspected had established effective systems to check whether cases were known to a Community Rehabilitation Company before sentence. There was, however, little discussion between the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies over appropriate proposals for reports. Further, there were still too many cases without a sufficient Risk of Serious Harm screening, and where necessary a full analysis of the risk of serious harm, in place before allocation. 

A Risk of Serious Recidivism score had been calculated in almost all cases. Based on the information on the case management system, the case was with the right organisation. Further investigation of Risk of Serious Recidivism scores, however, showed that a number were inaccurate, when compared with our inspector’s calculation, and that a few cases were being allocated incorrectly. Some had misinterpreted the guidance and either ignored relevant information or placed it in the wrong section of the tool. This led to some cases being allocated to the Community Rehabilitation Companies when they should have been with the National Probation Service. There were no quality assurance processes in place to improve the completion of the Risk of Serious Recidivism tool. 

The Case Allocation System had been completed in less than two-thirds of cases. Where it was done, it was completed on time and we also saw an improvement in the quality of the information it contained, with fewer sections marked ‘not known’. The timescale for completing the Case Allocation System, however, was often too short for external agencies such as children’s services or police domestic abuse units to return information. 

Due to the demands to see offenders quickly, there was a shift towards group induction, particularly within the Community Rehabilitation Companies. This was unpopular with a number of offender managers who felt that individual inductions resulted in better engagement. We found no evidence, however, to suggest that individual induction was more effective than group induction. 

Early Work in the Community Rehabilitation Companies 

Most cases were assigned to an identified offender manager within one working day of sentence. Fewer than half of the cases we inspected, however, had their first appointments with their offender managers within five working days of sentence. Full information on new cases was often not available at, or immediately following, allocation. In many instances this information followed on after the case had gone to a Community Rehabilitation Company.

The Offender Assessment System likelihood of reoffending assessment was sufficient in just over half of cases. Sentence plans were not always completed in good time and did not always address the factors relating to offending, or wider diversity issues and barriers to engagement. 

Many of the offenders supervised by a Community Rehabilitation Company had committed violent offences, or had been involved in domestic abuse. There were concerns about protecting children in a number of cases. Only two-thirds of Risk of Serious Harm screenings and half of full risk of harm analyses were sufficient. An effective risk management plan was in place in fewer than half of all relevant cases. Failure to assess accurately the risk of harm and then implement a plan to reduce it can lead to a focus on inappropriate work and to an increase in the harm an offender may pose.

Overall, appointments were offered in line with the requirements of the sentence and staff had made efforts to motivate offenders to comply. Non-compliance was addressed quickly by Community Rehabilitation Company staff who issued warnings appropriately and sought to re-engage offenders and promote compliance with the sentence. 

Early Work in the National Probation Service 

Almost all sampled cases were allocated within one working day and seen by their offender managers within two working days. Diversity issues and barriers to engagement were identified in the majority of cases; however, plans to address these issues were only developed in two-thirds of relevant cases. Most cases had a sufficient assessment of the likelihood of reoffending but timeliness was an issue. Sentence plans were sufficient in two-thirds of cases and where completed generally did contain appropriate objectives. 

Most cases had a Risk of Serious Harm screening in place but some staff had taken too long to complete them. Full risk of harm assessments were sufficient in just over half of the cases we inspected. Assessments did not always draw on all available sources of information and the analysis of the risk to children was not good enough in too many cases. Poor quality assessments led almost inevitably to poor quality risk management plans, less than two-thirds of which were sufficient. Where there were concerns over the safety of children, we found that the use of Child Protection procedures by National Probation Service staff needed to improve. Management oversight had not been effective enough to address these shortfalls. 

The frequency and type of contact was good in most cases, and in the majority interventions had been delivered as planned. Where offenders failed to comply we saw a robust response and appropriate use of the enforcement process. More home visits should have been made, however, where offenders posed a risk of serious harm to the public and in Child Protection cases. 

Enforcement 

Overall, the enforcement process was variable, with some Local Delivery Units still experiencing high rejection rates for breach packs. Many had been returned for spelling and grammatical errors or to question proposals. The best examples were found in Local Delivery Units that had established good quality assurance processes and positive relationships between Community Rehabilitation Company staff and National Probation Service prosecution staff, making swift enforcement more likely. 

Swift enforcement is more likely to secure engagement with planned work and future compliance. To breach a case, the Community Rehabilitation Companies must produce a breach pack and pass the case to the National Probation Service for prosecution. There are a number of timescales which have to be met and these should be recorded clearly on nDelius. Recording was not clear in half of the breach cases we inspected and this made it difficult to determine if the required timescales had been met. 

The small number of licence cases in the sample were enforced correctly by the Community Rehabilitation Companies and all the recalls we saw were appropriate. 

Risk Escalation 

The process of escalating cases to the National Probation Service in the event of an increase in an offender’s risk of serious harm was improving. Staff confidence had grown and there was a greater investment in the value of the process in most of the Local Delivery Units we visited. Almost all the cases we saw had a clear and justifiable reason for starting the escalation procedure. 

In some Local Delivery Units the process was described by staff and managers as working well and quite clearly it was; however, that was not the case in all Local Delivery Units with some staff highly critical of their local processes which, in our view, operated much more effectively in some places, than in others.

There was considerable debate among Community Rehabilitation Company and National Probation Service managers concerning cases where an offender had been arrested or charged but then not convicted of a serious offence. In some instances, the National Probation Service had been left holding an escalated case which was not classified as posing a high risk of serious harm. Better communication between Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service would help to streamline the process. Further, there remains room for improvement in recording the required information on the case management system.

Bring Back Borstal

I know many readers will feel that we've overdosed on Borstal this week, but I feel I must say something about episode 1 of ITV's re-enactment series 'Bring Back Borstal', screened last night. It's been roundly condemned by a number of academics well in advance and I can understand why, not least because of the involvement of Professor David Wilson:- 

"I have held doubts about David Wilson, the so-called criminologist, for some time. He is a populist and contoversialist with a sideline in rent-a-quotes and is always on hand when the Daily Mail wants a feature. 'Punishment Porn' captures these shenanigans aptly."

"David Wilson is a joke. He masquerades as a serious academic criminologist, but in reality he just wants to get his face on TV or his name in the popular press. He is a publicity hungry pseudo-academic who is concerned only about self-promotion. Awful man."

"He has been parodied by Private Eye with them quoting 'a Criminologist' making statements like 'The perpetrator will be a loner who has a large network of friends. Extremely shy with a loud persona. Unintelligent but very bright'. Etc,etc." 

"There is always an academic willing to pin their colours to amy cause. Like the US doctor who thinks that 'gravely sick people have a duty to die'. Academic qualifications are no indicator of credibility, particularly where reality TV is concerned."

But leaving that aside, for those with long memories, this social experiment is very similar to the 'Bad Lads Army' series screened a few years ago which sought to re-create the experience of National Service from the 1950's. Just like 'Bring Back Borstal', it can't replicate all aspects of the institution it seeks to emulate because the participants are willing volunteers in a televised social experiment and can walk out at any time. But despite this, the lads soon come to realise that it is 'reality', but of a different sort to that they are used to and very strong emotions are stirred as a result.

Just as with 'Bad Lads Army', a number of the lads very soon realise that what they might have thought was going to be nothing more than a remunerated laugh, in fact quite quickly turns out to be something they can't cope with and make a rapid exit. I'm hypothesising, but I suspect in time some may come to view that the reason they often give - 'I don't like it' - sounds a bit pathetic, especially by the time their mates have watched the programme.  

The common theme with experiments like this seems to be the degree to which the young men make it plain that they are not used to hearing the word 'no' and feel completely entitled to refuse to do anything they don't like. Of course being able to come to terms with both is a very important lesson in life and it will be fascinating to see how each deals with this over the course of the series. 

Without doubt it's risky TV, and I'd be fascinated to view some of the mountain of footage left on the cutting room floor. I'd also like to know how much of the very long days were actually spent in purposeful activity. Despite the impression created, I suspect not that much, but that's TV for you. 

As a general rule, in Probation we're not allowed to take risks with clients any more. We're not even supposed to carry them in our cars, let alone take them off in a van to see the world beyond their street, so I have to admit I'm drawn to something like this simply because it's flying by the seat of your pants and experience tells me it can produce remarkable results. But for us that's all in the past - Probation is very much a risk-averse business now sadly.  

Despite the laudable aims of the Borstal system, I suspect we all know that it was traumatic and damaging for many and we shouldn't seek to airbrush that out of history. But to my mind it doesn't alter the fact that there are many positive aspects to some of the ideas and concepts that lay behind it and indeed National Service even. I'm thinking of all that sadly unfashionable character-building, team-building and confidence-building stuff such as Outward Bound, Intermediate Treatment, Sail Training Association, Scouting, Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme etc, etc. 

We know it worked in the past, broadened horizons, taught responsibility and would work again. Those long-in-the-tooth will recall Probation used to do it all, but we allowed it to get labelled as 'treats for naughty boys' and scrapped. We allowed the politicians and right-wing press to steer us down a punishment route and we ended up with bloody prison governors calling the shots in NOMS. 

I'm sure 'Bring Back Borstal' will continue to annoy many, but just like 'Bad Lads Army', I'm also fairly sure that for some of the participants it will prove a beneficial, life-changing experience and serve to remind us in the Criminal Justice System that we've still got a lot to learn about effective rehabilitation and the most appropriate treatment of young offenders.

Grayling Wasting Money

Whilst I was out and about yesterday delivering the prize to the lucky millionth-hit winner, there's been a lot of talk about how much tax payers money Chris Grayling is wasting. It was all triggered by the latest report from the justice Affairs Committee and the essence of the argument summed up here in the Independent:-

Cash being used to build jails to hold the burgeoning prison population should be switched into preventing vulnerable people becoming caught up in crime in the first place, the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling is warned today by MPs.

In a damning assessment of the Ministry of Justice’s priorities, they urge the Treasury to investigate whether taxpayers’ money is being used effectively to reduce crime. The cash could be better spent on support for first-time single parents, as well as schemes helping people with mental health and alcohol problems, the Commons Justice select committee said. It also questioned how much credit the Government can take from continuing falls in crime rates.

In a report published today, the committee said violent crime, 44 per cent of which is drink-related, costs Britain almost £30bn a year, while drug-related crime costs £13.3bn and crime committed by people with behavioural problems as children costs £60bn. It contrasted the huge bills with the relatively small amounts spent on schemes such as family nurse partnerships, a programme of help for teenage single parents. The committee called for more funding to be allocated to mental health services – the “inadequacy of which costs the police, courts, probation, and prisons and victims of crime greatly” – and protested that alcohol treatment remained a “Cinderella service” both in prison and the community. 

Sir Alan Beith, its chairman, said the amounts given to such initiatives were tiny compared with spending on prisons and the “staggeringly high costs to society of crime”. The committee accused ministers of shying away from using the programme of cuts to the criminal justice system to reevaluate where and how taxpayers’ money is spent. MPs said they could not establish whether the ministry and the Treasury had examined the case for diverting money earmarked for prison-building to other schemes. They called for a “Government-wide approach which recognises more explicitly that the criminal justice system is only one limited part of the system through which taxpayers’ money is spent to keep people safe”.

Politicians are urged to tone down their “hardline rhetoric” about crime for fear they could “inappropriately influence” sentencers and demoralise professionals working with offenders. The media is also challenged to promote a “more rational debate on criminal justice”.

The theme was picked up by this post on the Politics.co.uk website:-

Grayling's tough justice is as expensive as it is useless

We know Chris Grayling's 'hang-em-and-flog-em' approach to crime doesn't work. Now we are starting to see how much it costs.

The prisons are stuffed full of more and more people, the conditions inside getting worse all the time - partly as a matter of policy. Grayling pays eye-watering fines for each new inmate he adds to overcrowded private prisons.

The need to cut costs could have been an opportunity to think differently about how to do rehabilitation. Instead Grayling has retreated into a Dickensian penal policy - the equivalent of an old general reading the Telegraph with his breakfast and spluttering about political correctness.

A justice committee report published today showed MPs are running out of patience with the Ministry of Justice's lack of interest in evidence-based policy or value for money. MPs on the committee went to Texas and found a political consensus. In this bastion of liberalism, they found agreement that there needed to be a plan to limit the growth of, and ultimately reduce, the prison population - primarily for financial reasons.

MPs, like so many before them who looked at the evidence, called for an increased use of community sentences.

'The committee concludes that a prison system which effectively rehabilitates a smaller number of offenders, while other offenders are rehabilitated through robust community sentences, has the potential to bring about a bigger reduction in crime," MPs found.

The finding is unlikely to trouble Grayling, because evidence plays little role in his view of the world. As MPs found, "ministers appear to have taken steps to increase their understanding of crime trends only at a relatively late stage in this parliament". They called on the government to "recognise more explicitly where reoffending has fallen and seek to understand why".

Saving public money is apparently the entire raison d'etre of this government, but while Grayling bleeds cash with his overstuffed prisons, there's no investigation of how to spend taxpayer money most effectively.

Committee chair Alan Beith said:

"Although crime has been falling, the extent to which this can, in practice, be attributed to national or local crime reduction policies is unclear. We do not have the right structures in place to provide a collective memory of research evidence, its relative weight, and its implications for policy making, including the best direction of resources, and we call on the government to create an independent and authoritative body to facilitate this."

MPs even bother to lay out some price tags. What if just some of the resources earmarked for new prison development could be used on early intervention techniques? The savings could be significant.

For example, each year:

• Violent crime, 44% of which is alcohol related, costs almost £30 billion
• Crime perpetrated by people who had conduct problems in childhood costs around £60 billion.
• Drug related crime costs £13.3 billion.
• Anti-social behaviour related to alcohol abuse costs £11 billion

On the other hand, the costs of preventative investment 'further upstream' are relatively small:

• Evidence based parenting programmes cost about £1,200 per child.
• It's estimated that drug treatment prevented 4.9 million offences in 2010-11, saving approximately £960 million.

But taking this sort of far-sighted attitude - for instance by embedding alcohol dependence and mental health services in the criminal justice system - requires a more cerebral secretary of state than the one currently occupying the Ministry of Justice. There's little chance of any change of course now - no matter how much it costs the taxpayer.

Grayling was put in post to placate the tabloids. And this is what you get if you do the tabloids' bidding on criminal justice: wasted public money and ineffective policy.

On top of all this we still don't know how much the TR omnishambles is costing, but estimates put it at around £150 million so far.

Only Following Orders

Given all the recent discussion concerning 'sifting and sorting' and Napo's advice about lodging a grievance, I thought it might be instructive for some readers if I published part of a letter that indicates how these grievances are being dealt with. I don't think it matters which Trust it relates to as I suspect the script is pretty typical and orchestrated by the MoJ. 

Dear...........

Transforming Rehabilitation Programme: Problem Resolution Procedure

I acknowledge receipt of your grievance under the Trust's Problem Resolution Procedure. This relates to the national transforming rehabilitation programme that the Trust is required to implement. The Trust aims to create a culture where concerns and issues are resolved as close as to the source as possible to create the opportunity for suitable solutions to be explored.

The nature of this grievance, that being the national programme means a local resolution on this matter is not achievable. The trust is required to follow the framework and processes set down by the MoJ. There are some matters where we have local discretion. Such matters will be consulted on during the course of the implementation process. As the Trust is following instruction, the framework and processes as laid down by the MoJ, the Trust's problem resolution procedure does not apply. The Trust will continue to share information from the TR programme with staff as it emerges. We will continue to share your concerns with the programme.

The location is unlikely to change for most staff as a result of the transfer. In your letter before transfer your location will be confirmed.

I note your concerns regarding the date to be used for sifting purposes. HR is working closely with the Management Information Team to ensure factors that would affect this being an accurate picture are taken into account such as: maternity leave, long-term sickness absence and secondments. Line Managers have also been asked to identify those individuals where this date would not be broadly typical of their workload. Further discussions have taken place and Line Managers have been asked to provide a point in time when a more typical caseload calculation can be used, to ensure that no individual is disadvantaged as a result of their atypical caseload. If you require further information please discuss this with your Line Manager.

I would like to assure you that the Trust is working with the MoJ, local trade unions and colleagues to ensure the practicalities of the staff transfer are delivered to ensure the best outcome for Staff, Service Users and the Community. 

>>>>>>>>>>

The Trust has received a number of similar communications and appreciate that you and your colleagues have concerns about the future for the probation profession and for the work we undertake to protect the public and reduce reoffending. Many of these points have been raised by the Trust through the formal consultation about Transforming Rehabilitation and in subsequent meetings with both the programme team and ministers. However, the Trust itself will no longer be delivering services after 1 April and is not therefore in a position to determine the outcomes of the programme. 

On a more positive note I believe you should take encouragement from the development of the Probation Institute as a focus for maintaining professional standards and staff development . This initiative has been the result of joint work between the Probation Association, Probation Chiefs association and the trade unions with support from the MoJ. 

>>>>>>>>>>>  

Finally, line management is there to help support you through this process. Our staff are professional, loyal, hardworking and committed to working with offenders in the community and to supporting colleagues on the front line of service. That work, supported as it is by our values, will be equally important and necessary once the new operating model is implemented. Any further information will be shared with you at the earliest opportunity and I hope this will help address some of the present uncertainties.

Yours sincerely,

.    

Politics and TR 2

It doesn't take long for the political classes to resume normal service after their fortnight festive break and sure enough, things kicked off with Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan making a big issue of some figures he'd flushed out of the MoJ about sentencing. They were duly splashed on the front page of the Daily Telegraph:-

Half of convicted sex attackers, violent criminals and burglars are avoiding prison despite government pledges to end “soft” sentences, official figures have revealed. More than 65,000 serious criminals walked free despite being convicted of a range of offences including rape, sexual assault, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and robbery. Just 53 per cent of convicted paedophiles who abused children under the age of 13 were jailed in 2012, while half of drug dealers also escaped jail. Overall, just one in four criminals were sent to prison when lesser sentences were taken into account.

The figures are likely to embarrass the Conservatives. Chris Grayling, the justice secretary who has positioned himself as a Tory traditionalist on law and order in contrast to Ken Clarke, his more liberal predecessor. One senior Tory backbencher said the figures demonstrate that there is a "malaise" at the heart of the criminal justice system, while Labour described the number of offenders avoiding prison is an "insult" to victims of crime.

Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary who obtained the statistics in a parliamentary answer, said that government cuts are undermining the justice system. He said: "Some of these crimes are so serious and violent that members of the public rightly expect them to lead to a prison sentence.One of the concerns is that this is being done in order to save money. Justice done on the cheap like this risks prisoners reoffending rather than being reformed which means more victims and misery.This will be an insult to many victims of crime who want to see those who committed crimes against them properly punished and rehabilitated."

Mr Grayling, the justice secretary, said that the government is overhauling guidelines to ensure criminals receive tougher sentences in future. He said: "Since 2010 those who break the law are more likely to go to prison for longer and we are continuing to overhaul sentencing to ensure that the toughest sentencing measures are available to the courts.

I'll take no lessons from a Labour party that let thousands of criminals out of prison early because they hadn't provided enough places, who let thousands of offenders off with a slap on the wrist caution instead of proper punishment, and who failed to get any money from prisoners' earnings for their victims."

Sadiq seems to be saying in effect that far more people need locking up, even though we have one of the highest incarceration rates of any western democracy and he's been tweeting about the lack of prison places:-

Prisons desperately short of space: 11 weeks in a row population has risen, hit 99.4% of capacity & just 509 places left

Chris Grayling has responded on the Conservative Home website:-

The irony wasn’t lost on me when I looked at the front page of the Daily Telegraph yesterday – a story in which Sadiq Khan, Labour’s Shadow Justice Spokesman, was expressing outrage at the sentences being given to some offenders, and complaining that the justice system was too soft. This was the very system that we inherited from Labour, which they presided over for more than a decade.  If they were so worried about it, why didn’t they act then?  Quite to the contrary, under their watch, they let thousands of prisoners out of prison early because they hadn’t provided enough prison places, they let thousands of offenders off with a slap on the wrist caution instead of a proper punishment, and they – to add insult to injury – failed to get any money from prisoners’ earnings for their victims.

The offences being put about need to be looked at in context.  The categories of offences are a very big umbrella, so whilst it suited Labour to run a bit of scaremongering, the truth is that each category covers offences from the relatively minor to the potentially relatively serious.  This is why a judge has the leeway to decide, for example that if two teenage boys who’ve never been in trouble before get into a bit of a dust up in the pub, it’s more appropriate to give them a community sentence rather than sending them straight off to prison.

But this latest twist on the very familiar electioneering political game brought this swift press release from Frances Crook:-

Sentencing statistics should not be manipulated to stoke up fear

Responding to press coverage of sentencing statistics today, Frances Crook, Chief Executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said:

“It is disappointing that these statistics are being manipulated to stoke up fear. It is clear that the most serious violent and sexual crimes are resulting in prison sentences.

“But the reality of these crimes is a lot more complex than some politicians would like us to believe. It may be a 15-year-old sleeping with his 14-year-old girlfriend, a ‘burglary’ involving a homeless person getting into someone’s shed or a ‘child abduction’ with a divorcee failing to return kids on time after an access visit.

“Prison is a simplistic answer in many cases. Police and judicial discretion are crucial within properly considered national guidelines. The truth is that the number of people behind bars has doubled in the past 20 years, with many people who have committed non-violent crimes being imprisoned needlessly.”

There are quite a few people concerned at what Sadiq Khan is up to. Here's our old friend tailgunner from over on the Napo forum writing on the subject and headed 'Disappointed with Sadiq'

Parliamentary Questions about the number of sex offenders, burglars etc who are sentenced to community penalties rather than custody seems set yet again fuel the tabloid appetite for punishment.

Undoubtedly we are headed for further swingeing cuts across the public sector in the next few years and this will include the MoJ , Prisons and Probation. So why pander to an ultimately futile and expensive ideology? Punishment is of course entirely appropriate but we should be primarily in the business of preventing re-offending and preventing the creation of future victims. Putting more mental health nurses into police stations is probably a refreshing dose of common sense in this respect.

The State of Texas has in recent years realised that 'hanging them and flogging them' is ultimately a fruitless pursuit - a realisation brought about by its sheer unaffordability even there - and so rehabilitation is gaining a greater foothold. One hesitates to suggest yet again following an American approach to justice, but sometimes they get it right.

We will be faced with more large financial cuts soon. If they are to be targeted and effective, then we should be aiming to reduce the prison population - not increase it. This will not create more victims or greater levels of re-offending - quite the reverse. Moreover there are great savings to be made by more careful and frugal use of electronic monitoring. This has been a huge cash cow for the likes of Serco and G4S and the Secretary of State is bent on greater not lesser use of this disposal as well.

Finally, an independent estimate of the cost of the TR programme puts it at around £125m. Much of this money has already been spent but savings could still be made if we stopped, drew breath and reviewed what we are doing.

Necessary savings can be made whilst at the same time reducing re-offending and reducing the numbers of future victims - but it takes political will on both sides of the House. The key is not to destroy the Probation Service but to build on what it is and what it does.

So, what about the LibDems? Are they going to be the party of common sense and rise above all this political point-scoring and scaremongering? As Harry Fletcher reminds us via twitter, we are rapidly approaching the third reading of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill:-   

3rd reading OR Bill 14 Jan. Email MP now.Support Labour front bench amendments NO selloff without votes+ pilot before sale!

and the LibDems could easily decide to support the very sensible Labour amendment that ensures a TR pilot scheme must be arranged before any irrevocable decision is taken regarding full implementation of the proposed omnishambles. 

Even at this late stage it's vitally important to e-mail your MP, and especially if they happen to be a LibDem!   

Time For BoB

Right, the games up. Forget all that MoJ glossy spin the PR people have put on it and Chris Grayling's cosy video fire side chat. We all know TR is a crock of shite. It's not going to work, deadlines cannot be met, potential bidders are getting cold feet and most of the so-called 'best in the business' partnerships have no track record and exist on paper only.  Bit by bit the wheels are falling off and the whole omnishambles looks increasingly to be undeliverable.

Anyone with an ounce of rational thought or political nous realised some time ago that the grand TR plan was a non-starter, a daft and dangerous leap in the dark and that some way of pulling the plug on it has to be found, and pretty damned quick before any more highly qualified and principled staff leave the good ship probation. There simply has got to be a plan B. 

I've had enough. I can't bare to see this honourable, award-winning and high-performing public service trashed by grubby ideological politicians and slowly fall apart because they cannot bring themselves to admit that it's all a very bad mistake. I guess political reality dictates that an escape route is signposted in order to save face, so lets have a stab at just that, a plan B. 

The one killer argument for TR is that it will embrace all the under 12 month custody people who probation do not have a statutory responsibility for. Without doubt, A Good Idea. So the answer is quite easy and straight forward - give them all to the experts to deal with, the existing local Probation Trusts. The time has come, a bit belatedly it has to be said, for whomever is left and able to speak for the public probation service to argue that a way has to be found of undertaking all the extra work more cheaply and effectively than as proposed under TR.

To take a leaf out of the TR omnishambles book, lets call it a straw man and lets give him a name. Not Tom, but BoB - Bloody obvious B. What I'm about to suggest is not rocket science. On the contrary it is quite obvious and even Chris Grayling acknowledges this in his recent video fireside chat. The trouble is he then goes on to advance some pretty unconvincing arguments why it isn't possible:-

Now you know and I know that the rate of reoffending for those people who are not supervised post prison is much higher than for those people who are, and that is something we have got to change. So the obvious question is why not just do it within the current system?

Well there’s a number of answers to that. To start off we have a system that is much too bureaucratic. I mean you all went into the Probation Service to spend time working with offenders, and all of the evidence I see is that the processes that we have in place means that much too little time is spent working with offenders, much too much time is just dealing with the systems. So what I want to do is to create a Probation system where the professionals working in the front line have got much greater freedom, don’t have the interference of central bureaucracy and have got much greater freedom to innovate and do things completely differently.

We looked at whether that could be done across the current system of 35 trusts and actually the last government looked at whether we would provide supervision for the under 12 month group, using the current system. They came to the conclusion it wasn’t affordable and that we would need to do things differently. I don’t think we can afford to carry on with a situation where we’re not supervising those under 12 month people. And the other thing I don’t think we can carry on with is a situation where we don’t have a proper, through the gate service.

The way I see it is this. In order to achieve the apparent miracle of achieving more for less we do what any organisation does when it finds itself up against a brick wall - it gets much more efficient, it makes savings and it focuses on it's core business.

As with any organisation that finds itself having to do more with less resources, it must look at all overheads. This will inevitably mean Trusts looking towards mergers or forming collaborative alliances and drastically cutting back on Head Office functions. It may well be that services such as payroll become national or regional and possibly outsourced. I don't know of a single PO who hasn't been astounded in recent years at the sheer size and headcount of their respective Head Office and number of managers, in stark contrast to frontline staff. It has to change - end of. 

Funnily enough this would be pushing at an open door with Grayling:- 

If you look at crime in Britain today, the number of people entering the Criminal Justice System for the first time is coming down, fewer crimes overall being committed but more and more of our crime problem is about people who are committing crimes again and again, going round and round the system and what we’re doing, rather than having a situation where, as we would be other wise in Probation, closing trusts, merging operations, making people redundant to meet a tough budget settlement, what we’re actually doing is spending more money on supervising those people who go to jail for 12 months and less, who at the moment walk onto the streets with £46 in their pocket, get no supervision and more likely to reoffend than anyone else.

Fortunately there are a number of changes to the probation landscape that could assist with BoB, such as a move towards a generic Community Order with probation staff having complete discretion as to the exact nature of any requirements, along the lines of that pioneered in West Yorkshire and so admired by Jeremy Wright.  

We know that the MoJ have been working on a much simplified risk assessment tool for use at first point of contact such as court and we know that significant numbers of the under 12 month custody people will not require any probation involvement at all. Using the skill and professional judgement of existing probation staff there is plenty of scope for making sure resources are deployed where they are most required, but conversely making sure that those not needing attention are moved out of the system as quickly as possible. 

I would envisage a return of the good old day centre concept, staffed by a combination of PO's PSO's and volunteers that could ensure cost-effective supervision and oversight of significant numbers of people, whilst ensuring those in most need are identified and assisted. But hang on a minute, we know such schemes are already running in various parts of the country, like this one described by a reader back in early December:-

I agree with Jim Brown's previous assessment that we need to look at Plan B. Jeremy Wright has been persuading the Lib Dems that they may as well vote for the bill so that the under 12 months problem can be addressed and he can privatise Probation anyway under the 2008 legislation. 

We need a costed alternative to present to the Lib Dems and call for a pilot and for Probation to be given the opportunity to supervise them. In Gloucestershire we have a costed resettlement project already under way with voluntary offenders for the under 12 months and it's costed at £75,000 a year and funded by the Police and Crime Commissioner. The project will engage with the offenders prior to release, through engagement within the prison, with the purpose of connecting the offender to the relevant support services in order to enable them to engage with those services at the point of release in an effort to work towards reducing the chances of re-offending.

The project will provide a service specific to those offenders who fall within this cohort and the Staff will work with those offenders to address their offending behaviour, they will link into a number of other provisions for the purpose of addressing areas such as Drug and Alcohol, Education/Training/Employment and Accommodation. The services to be linked into will include Turning Point, Independence Trust, Community Based Housing Support, Homeless Provision (P3), Nelson Trust etc.

Each offender will be assessed as to their needs by the project staff and then linked into the appropriate services. Once the assessment is complete the project staff will identify a volunteer/mentor who will work with the offender on release to support them to engage with the identified services. It involves one band 4 for 30 hours, one band 3 full time and an admin officer one day a week and it is envisaged that there will be around 240 offenders a year. 

I know Napo are commissioning a costed study so I have sent this in to them. We need to work out an alternative to keep the under 12 months in Probation - I know Wiltshire have also a project working out of HMP Bristol, has any other area a similar one? 
It all sounds very similar to the TR omnishambles proposals doesn't it? The only difference is that it's happening now and as a natural extension to the work of a Probation Trust and with the full involvement of the local PCC. There are similar schemes working in other places such as Leeds, West Yorkshire.  

But lets not kid ourselves this is quite a challenge, as outlined by another commentator:-

The 12mth and under group Grayling keeps shouting are the problem group that makes TR necessary. But its not the reason really is it? Its just ideology and farming out responsibility to the cheapest shyster in town. A smaller state and someone to blame when it goes wrong.

But my personal belief is that Grayling doesn't really understand how much of a problem the 12mth and under group are going to become for him. They are in my experience the most prolific offenders with deep rooted causes to their offending patterns. Most, regardless of state or private intervention, will continue to offend. Drug or alcohol dependency, mental health problems, entrenched social behaviours, poor employment prospects, or even the loss of fear of custody are all just some of the factors that will keep this group highly criminally active and as a consequence will retain pretty constant reconviction rates.

I'm not trying to say that this group are beyond help, I'm just trying to be realistic.
So the private sector take responsibility for this very difficult group on a payment by result method, and if they don't reduce the reoffending rates, they don't get paid.
I for one don't fancy their chances of success much at all. And over a period of a ten year contract reducing those reoffending rates year upon year is going to become ever more difficult and problematic. But not enough reduction, not enough pay.
 
Graylings concern for the 12mth and under group and his idea of handing them over to private industry as a solution is only going to bite him where it hurts. Not only with a statistical measurement of (non) crime reduction, but constant conflict and dissent from private organisations who wont get paid because they are unable to fix the problem.

Grayling may by this time next year wish he'd left this group alone.

This group does need help, and as much as can be extended to them. But...... would you take a job if your annual salary was calculated on the number of 12mth and under offenders you managed to stop reoffending over a 12mth period of supervision? I wouldn't.

So it's definitely a challenge, but we all know this should be work for probation. We know what needs doing and have a proven track-record in working effectively with offenders and helping them to turn their lives around. Everybody, get thinking about how BoB can work and how it can be paid for. It's now the only way we can all get out of this bloody mess that Chris Grayling has got us into and the only way of keeping a highly-skilled and effective locally-based public probation service.