Probation's Journey Continues

Extracts from the first part of the latest Academic Insights paper 'Professionalism in Probation' has produced some very interesting responses, so here is the second and final extract. 

2.3 Towards a relational future for professionalism: opportunities and challenges 

In 2018, just four years after Transforming Rehabilitation was implemented, the Government announced yet more probation restructuring. Initial plans for the next iteration of services retained a commitment to a ‘mixed market approach’ (MoJ, 2018, p.3), with the Government pledging to work with CRCs to renegotiate contracts. However, after a consultation (MoJ, 2018), a subsequent response (MoJ, 2019), and several (draft) target operating models (HMPPS, 2020a, 2020b, 2021), it was announced that offender management would return to the public sector – a decision influenced in part by the Covid19 pandemic. Probation was unified in June 2021: CRCs were terminated, with services divided between 12 regions and housed within the Civil Service. The Chief Inspector of Probation has warned that while unification ‘is not a magic bullet for improving performance’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020a, p.8), structural reform can provide the stability from which to rebuild. In this sense, it offers opportunities for the future of professionalism, but also challenges. 

Among the challenges for probation as services are unified is the recent uptick in punitive rhetoric. For example, in September 2020, a white paper entitled A Smarter Approach to Sentencing (MoJ, 2020a) mostly contained ‘tough’ measures, including longer sentences for a variety of offences. As a result, changes to sentencing, alongside plans to increase police numbers and a prison building programme, have led the Ministry of Justice (2020b) to predict that the prison population could rise to 98,700 over the next six years. The likely impact of such punitive discourses on probation caseloads poses both organisational and individual challenges. At the level of the organisation, appeals to ‘tough on crime’ initiatives undermine public confidence in community sentences, for pro-punitive sentiments mean that probation services can struggle to gain credibility (Robinson et al., 2012). Probation staff, meanwhile, may experience difficulty in (re)articulating and realising a distinct ideology of service if individual caseloads increase – especially from within the Civil Service, if these values conflict with Government policy (Carr, 2020). 

Caseload pressures can also be exacerbated by the challenges of recruitment and retention. A survey of 1,534 probation staff conducted by HM Inspectorate of Probation (2022, p.15) as part of their most recent annual inspection of services revealed that about half (51 per cent) thought their workloads were ‘not so manageable’. Additional funding was allocated to recruiting 1,000 staff onto the Professional Qualification in Probation in 2021, the training pathway to become a probation officer, with another 1,500 in 2022 (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2022). However, lengthy vetting procedures, the time taken to train new staff, and increasing resignations (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2022) suggests that the benefits of recruitment and (re)professionalisation strategies will take time to realise. The role of the staff-client relationship in supporting desistance is salient within the probation literature (McNeill, 2006; Weaver, 2011); hence, it is crucial that staff, as the service’s most valuable asset, are the subject of ongoing investment. If, as argued above, professionalism in probation refers to a way of organising work according to knowledge, discretion, and the opportunity to realise distinctive, people-centred identities, then reduced caseloads and the greater provision of training can enhance professional skills and afford the space to deploy and reflect on such expertise. 

Key to the plans to develop professionalism in probation is the creation of ‘an independent statutory register for probation professionals’ (MoJ, 2019, p.4), with the intention of (re)forging a common identity among all staff. This seeks to better recognise probation work as a profession, building upon similar proposals by HM Inspectorate of Probation (2019a) to bring the service into line with other certified professions, such as medicine. The register will mandate professional training, ensure that clients and the public are protected from gross negligence via debarment (MoJ, 2019), and provide ‘access to high-quality, practical learning resources that… support day-to-day tasks’ (HMPPS, 2020c, p.9). While, at the time of writing, there has been little progress on the professional register, it provides an ideal resource through which to (re)establish a clear ideology of service. Here, Canton’s (Academic Insights paper 2019/02) analysis of the European Probation Rules (EPR) provides a framework within which to develop the professional register. Articulating values grounded in human rights and the minimisation of harms, he contends, is at the core of the EPR. Making such values explicit through the professional register can serve to instil a common identity among probation staff that was fractured by Transforming Rehabilitation. 

And yet, while attempts ‘to improve… professionalisation’ (MoJ, 2020a, p.63) through appeals to its ideal-typical tenets have thus far been presented as vital to the future of the profession, McNeill (2019, p.145) states that an exclusive focus on staff betrays a ‘tunnel vision in the supervisory imaginary’. He argues that the development of new ways of working ‘begin in the wrong place’ (McNeill, 2006, p.45) if the focus is on practice rather than how individual change occurs. As probation scholars have argued, professionals do not ‘own’ the process of desistance (Albertson et al., 2020); rather, its ‘rightful owners [are] victims, offenders and communities’ (Maruna, 2006, p.24). Relevant persons other than professionals can thus play a meaningful role in decision-making. This is supported by recent research which indicates that services can be improved if we enable meaningful citizen participation. HM Inspectorate of Probation (2019b) argue that service user involvement in service provision benefits staff by providing insights into how clients experience probation. Greater involvement in, and co-production of, services is a way to ‘democratise engagement with service users’ (Weaver, 2011, p.1045): learning about clients as individuals rather than cases, as one member of staff put it, enabled him to ‘see the person behind the risk’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019b, p.15; emphasis in original). This suggests that probation professionals have an important role to play in reinforcing a sense of belonging in clients through a focus on collaborative relationships. 

Restorative practice could represent a framework through which probation can better embed partnerships ‘between the state and individuals, victims, families and communities as co-producers of justice’ (Weaver, 2011, p.1048). Indeed, restorative theories around conflict ownership and the notion of justice as identifying and meeting stakeholders’ needs (Christie, 1977) correspond closely with the literature on the desistance process (Maruna, 2006; McNeill, 2006). Marder (Academic Insights paper 2020/04) notes that restorative practice comprises:

 • values – including stakeholder participation, the goals of addressing and repairing harm, and a focus on cultivating positive relationships 

• language – open, non-judgemental questions, encouraging emotional expression and reflection 

• processes – including circles, family conferencing and mediation, through which the values are enacted. 

Marder argues that better integrating a restorative culture within probation would ‘actively build positive relationships with and among colleagues, clients and the community [and] enable those who hold a stake in a given issue to participate voluntarily in dialogue and decision-making around that issue’ (Marder, 2020a, p.4). As the 2018 Council of Europe framework on restorative justice states, restorative practice has a wide range of applications across probation (Marder, 2020b). In this way, it holds significant potential for building relationships with victims and communities, promoting multi-agency work, and healing internal divisions (Tidmarsh and Marder, 2021). 

That probation ‘services are part of an ecosystem which is… suffering from declining investment’ (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020a, p.6) heightens the need for ‘co-productive’ approaches – defined by Bovaird (2007, p.847) as: 

‘the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers (in any sector) and service users or other members of the community’. 

Such an approach is supported by Rule 12 of the EPR, which states that probation services ‘shall work in partnership with other public or private organisations and local communities to promote the social inclusion of offenders’ (c.f. Canton, 2019, p.7). Relational approaches that involve people on probation, such as restorative practice and co-production, have the potential to expedite the acquisition of pro-social and non-criminal identities (Weaver, 2011). Unification provides an opportunity not only to re-centre probation as a public sector profession underpinned by knowledge and expertise, but also to build professional networks in the community. Here, the provision of time and training can enable staff to develop the links which can help them to realise a client-centred ideology of service. 

Perhaps the most promising initiative which emphasises the benefits of involving external stakeholders in service design and delivery is that of ‘community hubs’, introduced by some CRCs as a way to support multi-agency working with local health and welfare organisations. They are an innovation that staff and service users have generally received positively (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020b). Community hubs thus illustrate probation’s potential for co-production, as the connective tissue that binds together different social spheres and the communities they represent (Senior et al., 2016). Albertson et al. (2020, p.6) suggest that the range of actors involved makes hubs ‘well placed to affect structural impediments to desistance at the nexus of community, society and the individual’. Desistance literature emphasises not what is done to an offender in the course of a criminal justice sanction, but rather, the importance of acquiring positive internal narratives (Maruna, 2006). Remaking the temporal-spatial and relational boundaries of probation practice by promoting ‘enabling’ structures can thus hasten the ‘discovery’ of agency (Albertson et al., 2020). 

Unification, therefore, offers an opportunity to build on best practice. Investment in staff should be at its core: 

• providing the foundations for upskilling professional knowledge and expertise  

• improving autonomy to work with people on probation and build community links 

• helping to develop the ability to reflect critically on practice. 

A clear focus on enhancing the tenets of professionalism identified in this paper can thus help to rebuild an identity and culture within probation which is relational, collaborative, and, above all, person-centred.

3. Conclusion 

After years of instability within probation, the potential for some stability as a result of unification is welcome. Transforming Rehabilitation has brought many of probation’s underlying issues to the surface; its essence (Senior et al., 2016), if not lost altogether, has been further tainted by the logic of competition and profit. The ‘national service of second chances’ (House of Commons Hansard, 2020), as the Shadow Secretary of State for Justice recently described probation, itself requires a second chance. Most staff within the new probation body will likely welcome the changes, while remaining anxious about the future (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020a) – especially, as Carr (2020) has observed, from within the unfamiliar institutional environment of the Civil Service. 

The next iteration of probation should be reconstructed around the professionalism of its staff, its most valuable asset, with the goal of building and maintaining a wide ‘network of relationships’ (Dominey, 2019, p.284) at its core. A renewed focus on ‘professionalism’ is rooted in a recognition of the need to re-professionalise staff through knowledge, education, and training, and to engage them in an evidence-base. The benefits of this strategy will take time to realise, particularly because it takes place against an all too familiar backdrop of punitive criminal justice rhetoric and projections that prison populations will continue to increase (MoJ, 2020a, 2020b). A likely increase in people on the probation caseload could further hinder professional autonomy and an ideology of service. It is thus vital that further recruitment enables staff to spend more time with people on probation and to reflect critically on their practice. This, alongside resources like the professional register, can help to re-emphasise shared values and create a positive service identity into which new staff can be socialised. 

Greater co-production with external stakeholders, too, can underpin a relational basis for a new ‘professionalism’ – one that respects the service’s unique history and culture while emphasising its contemporary relevance as a social, legal and moral arbiter between people on probation, the state, victims and communities. This collaborative, bottom-up focus on relationships, between and among people on probation, communities and professionals, clearly overlaps with restorative practice (Marder, 2020a). Indeed, the new probation body could explore dialogic and restorative models to negotiate a new culture to which all staff buy-in. With sufficient institutional support and investment in the wider social infrastructure in which the service operates, probation staff can pursue a professionalism which is grounded in ‘thick’ (Dominey, 2019) relationships that help the new service to recapture its legitimacy.

--oo00oo--

Mention of 'relationships' here takes me right back to the beginning of this blog and something I published in 2010 'It's the Relationship Stupid' and re-visited in 2017 'Nothing New'. I understand recently-departed Chief Probation Officer Sonia Flynn will be undertaking work on setting up the Professional Register as part of the Probation Workforce Programme.

So, How Did It Go?

With the dreadful 'Probation Day' thankfully out of the way for the second year, it's probably as well if we have a look at the recent assessment of 'Project Reunification' by the rather grandly-titled Institute for Government. We're only at stage one remember and there's almost certainly a whole lot more pain and angst coming down the line for a beleaguered service that many would say is rapidly becoming increasingly dysfunctional. Of course it was a world-leading Gold Standard service only a few years ago and before the politicians got involved.      

Reunification of probation services

Introduction In 2019, the government announced it was bringing the management of medium- and low-risk offenders in England and Wales back in house. The decision followed extensive criticism of the decision to outsource these services in 2015 and is the fourth major restructuring of probation services in 20 years, two of which have taken place in the last eight years alone. This case study looks at the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) preparations for the reunification of services and their transition back into the department, highlighting successes, challenges and areas of focus for the longer-term improvement of probation services.

--oo00oo--

Leadership and engagement 

With real problems associated with TR, having the right programme leadership for reunification was an important decision. Whether by design or not, the two most senior leaders responsible for the programme – SRO Jim Barton and director general Amy Rees – were both involved in TR. Learning from its failures no doubt coloured their approach – particularly with respect to engaging providers, as we discuss further below – and helped avoid a repeat of many of the same mistakes. In addition, their understanding of probation systems, processes and culture played a notable part in helping the programme navigate a complex landscape. 

A consistent theme during our research interviews was MoJ’s commitment to open dialogue and engagement. This included visits to providers, forums with staff and regular communications, all with the aim of making the changes as smooth as possible for staff and providers alike. With more than 7,000 staff across 54 affected organisations, the programme could not have been delivered effectively without a relentless focus on business change and an approach that was inclusive, bringing together the diverse stakeholders. The programme benefited from the fact that, unlike TR – which was almost universally unpopular from the off, being literally and figuratively divisive – unification was a change that many across the probation sector wanted to see. They were therefore more responsive to MoJ’s efforts to communicate and engage. Notwithstanding this, and some mixed feedback from HMIP’s survey, it is clear that MoJ set out with a genuine intention to put engagement at the centre of its programme. Its choice paid dividends. 

CRC innovations 

A key concern of providers when reunification was announced was that the innovations developed by CRCs would be lost. These concerns were valid, given the relatively limited autonomy in the civil service. And, to some extent, they turned out to be well founded – but not in the ways expected. 

The decision to jettison innovations such as case management systems was as much attributable to the tight timetable as to the restrictions of the civil service. The programme SRO acknowledged that these could have been integrated had there been more time, though this could have been a lengthy process. As it was, the need for speed meant taking a more rudimentary approach, and the path of least resistance was followed. Further, some of the innovations that were kept were largely serendipitous. For example, contact centres in Norfolk were retained partly because the contracts were too complicated to unpick in the time available. 

Overall, despite the clear commitment of MoJ to a ‘merger’, it was probably inevitable that the cultures and working practices would lean towards the NPS rather than the CRCs, as the Probation Service, like the NPS, would be in the civil service. 

Commissioning of services 

The central commercial decision for MoJ was its commissioning mechanism. It put effort into ensuring there was strong, early engagement to generate an active market of potential providers. However, despite representations to the contrary from providers, its Dynamic Framework was complex and made it difficult for smaller providers to qualify. As a result, some gave up trying to qualify, while others had to divert front-line resources to the tender processes, impacting front-line services. The approach was partly attributable to the need for speed. Faced with a challenging timetable, MoJ opted for a procurement approach that was in keeping with previous, large commercial arrangements that better suited large national providers, rather than developing a new approach that would have better supported smaller and local providers. MoJ also opted not to use grants, a key demand of the voluntary sector, for essentially the same reasons. 

Both these decisions were incorrect. More focus from the start on whether the Dynamic Framework was proportionate and fit for use by all participants would have saved time on communications and engagement as the process developed, and would have delivered a more diverse, engaged market of providers for Day 1 services. 

Richard Oldfield’s report on the Dynamic Framework, coupled with feedback, has resulted in MoJ now developing criteria and guidance on the use of grants, in partnership with Clinks. MoJ also told us that, despite challenges with the Dynamic Framework, 74% of contracts on Day 1 went to voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. This has since grown further, and the Dynamic Framework is subject to ongoing review and refinement. 

Workforce management 

MoJ’s core message to staff was that the change was a merger, not a takeover. With TR still casting a shadow over reunification, this was the right approach. But MoJ’s desire to ‘live and breathe’ this motto, while admirable, led to difficulties. 

An early decision was to carry out a job evaluation and grading support (JEGS) exercise: a process by which each new post’s grade in the Probation Service was assessed independently. While this undoubtedly reinforced the message that the Probation Service was, essentially, a new organisation being built from scratch, it did lead to unpredictable outcomes, with some CRC staff matched into roles at grades lower than expected. This, in turn, would leave some staff on lower pay after the three-year pay protection agreed for them in the National Agreement with Probation Trade Unions came to an end. Similarly, the emphasis on a new corporate identity led to some staff having inflated expectations that unification would make an instant and tangible difference to their work, when the reality was that these changes were simply a first step. While MoJ was generally excellent at communicating throughout the process, it could have better managed expectations about the immediate impact the transition would have on working conditions and service performance. 

A recurring theme in our research into the reunification of probation was the high volumes of cases CRC staff had to deal with post-unification. CRC staff arrived having to hold on to their existing cases until a new IT system could be developed to accept them. This lack of new, integrated IT capability on Day 1, rendered impossible by the aggressive timetable, was sub-optimal. It led to unnecessary pressure on some staff and this, in turn, likely coloured the perspectives of those who already felt ‘second class’. Staff shortfalls contributed to the caseload pressures, too. CRCs were required to freeze recruitment for up to three months prior to unification to minimise the overhead of onboarding and then transitioning further staff. While understandable, this led to critical gaps in the workforce. 

The future 

The probation reform programme will be formally wound up at the end of 2022. But the longer-term programme of work to improve the performance of probation services has only just begun. The structural changes of 2021 are the platform on which deeper and difficult changes will be built. That will be a lengthy journey. 

Transition highlighted several themes that will play an important part in that journey. For MoJ’s long-term ambitions for probation to be successful, the following areas should be focussed on. 

Operational performance 

A central criticism of TR was the poor performance of CRCs. Although performance improved over time in some CRCs, TR could not completely shake the perception of poor service delivery. 

Current probation performance is ‘not great’ with four ‘Inadequate’ and two ‘Requires Improvement’ Inspectorate reports. To some extent, this is to be expected, given wider public service performance27 (post-Covid-19, in particular28), existing challenges in probation and the post-transition bumps. But the success of unification will ultimately be judged by the performance of the new Probation Service. Without swift action that leads to better services, the reform programme risks being added to the long list of unsuccessful historical restructures. 

Recruitment 

By June 2022, 1,518 new probation officers had been recruited, but staffing numbers still remain below target: as of May 2022, there were 1,106 vacancies across the Probation Service.29 The government aims to recruit a further 1,500 officers in 2022/23. If it meets this target, it will be fully staffed. But this does not allow for staff attrition or increased demand on probation services. Sustained investment is needed in the years to come. The government previously announced an additional £155m for probation services, which, while helpful, may not be sufficient given the competition from other public sector employers, such as the police and Border Force, as well as the pressure from staffing groups to increase pay in line with high levels of inflation.  

The government’s recent announcement of an arbitrary reduction of the Civil Service by 91,000 will also make it more difficult – though not impossible – to secure the necessary agreements to recruit the necessary numbers beyond 2022/23, particularly after having already absorbed over 7,000 CRC staff. 

Cultural integration 

MoJ’s tagline for the unification of probation was that it was a ‘merger, not a takeover’. But mergers require cultural and contractual cohesion. MoJ is still in the process of trying to harmonise the terms and conditions for some 700 staff who worked for parent companies or subcontractors. This will be an important step towards proper workforce integration, without which true transformation and effective delivery of probation services will be difficult to realise.

The Need For A Better Plan

Even though the Probation Service has pretty much disappeared from public view behind the Civil Service wall of bureaucracy and secrecy, those in the know are fully aware that things are not at all in good shape. Effectively, there appears to be tacit agreement between key stakeholders to just cover their ears and shout 'la la la la la' as loudly as possible and hope everything will be just fine. 

Unless something serious happens, I don't think this situation will alter any time soon, but in the meantime it's interesting to see that the the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, even though not mentioning probation directly, is giving some serious thought as to the whole criminal justice landscape and the mess it's currently in:-     

A few weeks back, we published an article on our website by Whitney Iles, Khatuna Tsintsadze and Charlie Weinberg, the latest in the ‘critical care’ series they have been writing for us.

In the article, they criticised what they called “performance activism”, a tendency in the voluntary sector towards lots of activity, but “very little change on the ground”. While we don't really achieve anything, they argued, we are left “feeling good about our efforts”.

One of the things I have been wondering in the last few weeks is whether, in criminal justice, performance activism is itself a symptom of a frustration with the inertia of current criminal justice policy-making, its ‘stuckness’.

The prison system appears mired in almost permanent crisis. The police face a major crisis of trust. The court system is wrestling with an enormous backlog of cases. Injustices such as unfair joint enterprise convictions, the Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence, or racism throughout the justice system, are sometimes acknowledged. But nothing seems to change. Months may pass; the same issues, the same basic problems, remain.

Unsurprisingly, many of us probably feel trapped by the monotony of repeated criminal justice failure, unsure how, or if, we will ever escape it. A flurry of activity, even if it achieves little, can feel better than no activity at all.

I and colleagues at the Centre work are currently working on a new organisational strategy, to help guide the direction of our work through to our 100th anniversary in 2031. As part of that, I've been thinking about the problems of performance activism, and what might be behind it.

I've written this short piece to start bottoming out these issues. I'd be interested in any thoughts or reactions.

--oo00oo--

How do we escape the monotony of repeated policy failure? How do we instead do something genuinely new and transformative?

Consider the Prisons Strategy White Paper, published in December 2021, in what already feels like a different time.

It promises more prisons, on top of existing plans to expand current capacity to around 100,000 places. “We need a pipeline of accommodation beyond our current build programme”, the White Paper states, “and we will begin preparatory work... to set ourselves up for future expansion”.

There’s nothing particularly new here. In modern times, relentless prison growth has been the monotonous background noise of prisons policy since the eve of the Second World War, as I explained in this Prison Service Journal article from a few years back.

Its effect has been to scupper progress on meaningful reform. Whatever the merits of a number of other proposals in the Prisons Strategy White Paper – improving prison education, doing more to get ex-prisoners into jobs, and enhancing resettlement support, for instance – they will likely be negated by growing prisoner numbers.

A couple of weeks ago, Whitney Iles, Khatuna Tsintsadze and Charlie Weinberg wrote about “performance activism”, a symptom of a “lack of long-term thinking and political bravery”. With performance activism, we see “very little change on the ground”, while we are left “feeling good about our efforts”.

Current responses to initiatives such as the Prisons Strategy White Paper – talking up the perceived positives, while discretely shaking our heads about the obvious negatives – risks falling into this performance activism trap, I think.

Some might argue that this is what you get when too many grant funders favour short-term ‘impact’ over long-term ambition, and commissioning models reward nimble public relations, while punishing principled public challenge. I have much sympathy with such views.

But it also reflects the lack of long-term thinking that Whitney, Khatuna and Charlie wrote about, which all too-often leads to organisations falling into one of two, equally problematic, positions.

First, in seeking to influence the policy process, and to demonstrate impact, we can too readily accept the problem as defined by government, offering ‘solutions’ that tend towards reproducing in the present, and into future, the failed policies of the past. When this happens, we end up being defined in. We become part of the problem we claim we are trying to solve.

Alternatively, in seeking to escape the monotonous circularity of policy failure, we might too easily reject the grind of day-to-day influencing. This can result in powerful critiques and inspiring visions. But they are often critiques and visions easy to dismiss as utopian, and equally easy to ignore. This is the problem of being defined out. We stop having anything useful to contribute to the discussion.

What it means to navigate a course between these two, equally unhelpful, positions, to make possible an escape from the monotony of repeated failure, is something I and colleagues at the Centre are exploring, as we finalise a new strategy for the organisation.

In the context of the Prisons Strategy White Paper, it means, I think, developing coherent and credible alternatives to the seemingly relentless drive to ever more prisons, and charting a path to the world as we might wish it to be, while taking seriously the realities of the world as it is.

Richard Garside

Rhetoric and Reality

Channel 4 news has for me always stood out head and shoulders above other news providers and of course it's no great surprise that it's attracted the ire of the Tory party for doing its job so diligently. I note Kathy Newman has decided to expand on the piece the other day about a rehabilitation charity closing housing provision due to government funding cuts. It's a familiar pattern of course, but somewhat at odds with party political rhetoric:-   

Boris Johnson’s crime slogans might win votes, but taxpayers will foot the bill if offenders end up on the streets

Six houses in southern England have for more than four decades provided a home for thousands of the most vulnerable people. Vulnerable, and dangerous. Because the houses run by a charity – Change Grow Live – have offered accommodation over the years for around 2,000 former prisoners who have committed serious offences.

But on Friday, as my colleague Jackie Long reported on Wednesday’s Channel 4 News, those houses will close their doors. The charity blames funding cuts. They’ve been bankrolled by West Sussex County Council since 2003, but with central government grants cut by 38 per cent in real terms over the decade to 2019, the money has run out. For four months, Change Grow Live has funded the housing project itself. But now it can do so no longer.

By an unfortunate quirk of timing, this comes in the same week that the government announced its blitz on crime. On Wednesday, the Ministry of Justice also announced that criminals would be guaranteed accommodation when they left prison as part of a £20m plan to reduce reoffending.

It sounds like a good idea, but according to Change Grow Live, it’s a “quick fix”. The charity warns that without a long-term, well-funded solution, ex-offenders are more likely to end up on the streets – where they could pose a threat to the public – or back in jail, where they’ll end up costing the taxpayer more.

“Beating Crime” risks being little more than a slogan if the criminal justice system in its entirety is under-resourced. This journalist-turned-prime minister is, like a hack on a deadline, a true pro at coming up with an attention-grabbing phrase. His critics fear it’s the details that sometimes elude him.

Boris Johnson certainly captured the headlines with his pledge to make ex-offenders join “fluorescent-jacketed chain gangs”, or slap GPS ankle tags on burglars. But it’s hard to treat either policy as ground-breaking when both have actually been announced or trialled years ago. Labour tried the hi-vis jackets in 2008 and abandoned it after the offenders were abused by members of the public. The expansion of electronic tagging was first announced in 2011, and was originally supposed to have been rolled out across England and Wales in 2019. This week’s announcement was scaled back to just 19 police force areas.

And what’s underpinning these eye-catching pronouncements? Across the criminal justice system – police, courts, prisons and probation – years of spending constraints are now beginning to be reversed. But those at the sharp end say budget cuts of such magnitude should never have been made.

There has been a tacit – though not public – admission that cutting 20,000 police officers since 2010 was a mistake. The prime minister says the government is now half way to restoring those numbers, but when I asked the policing minister Kit Malthouse if the original cuts had been an error, he cited financial pressures at the time. It’s telling that despite the huge burden of pandemic debt, the government now sees fit to make the investment.

On prisons and probation, too, ministers insist they’re starting to boost expenditure, though the details are murky. The Ministry of Justice saw spending fall by 25 per cent between 2010 and 2020. Prison and probation minister Alex Chalk was unable to tell me on Channel 4 News on Wednesday whether the promise of an extra 2,500 probation officers restored the numbers cut since the Conservatives came to power, nor how much lower probation funding was now than then. He was, he said, “99 per cent sure” it was higher.

And while Johnson waxed lyrical on “chain gangs”, I didn’t hear him explain how he planned to clear the record crown court backlog of sixty thousand cases – a relic not just of lockdown constraints but budgetary ones too, leading barristers say. Nearly two decades ago, when I was still a newspaper hack myself, I remember the then Tory shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin setting out a big new idea on law and order, and a startling break from the party’s “prison works” policies of the Thatcher era. He wanted to end what he called the “conveyor belt” of criminality.

It didn’t win the Conservatives power. And perhaps that’s the point. No doubt the hi-vis jackets and the ankle tags will be popular. But will they stop people re-offending?

And if that doesn’t give you pause for thought, consider this: a year in one of the houses run by Change Grow Live costs £18,000. A year in prison costs £44,000. Put like that, the failure so far to address long-term under-investment in the criminal justice system could end up becoming a greater burden to the taxpayer in the long run.

Cathy Newman presents ‘Channel 4 News’, weekdays, at 7pm

--oo00oo--

The origins of Change Grow Live will come as no great surprise to probation officers of a certain vintage because such initiatives were commonplace during the enlightened times when magistrates ran the probation service, not politicians:-

A pattern and a plan

We got our start back in 1977, when a group of magistrates in Sussex noticed a pattern. They saw people going to prison, being released with no home to go to, re-offending and being sent back to prison, over and over again.

So they decided to do something about it.

Recognising that homelessness was the basis for the pattern, they pooled their resources and bought a house. From there, they started offering accommodation and support to people leaving prison. They called their charity the Sussex Association For The Rehabilitation of Offenders, or Saro for short.

Seeing the whole person

In those early days, volunteers did all the work. They saw their approach had a big impact, so they opened more houses across Sussex to support people leaving prison.

They also noticed that drugs and alcohol played a role in the cycle of homelessness and offending. So they started to look for ways to provide support with those issues too. It might sound obvious, but taking a holistic approach that looked at everything going on in someone’s life was pioneering.

It proved to be just what people needed. To keep up with the demand for our services in the 1990s, we merged with other local organisations, including a domestic violence charity and a residential rehabilitation unit, and hired our first paid members of staff.

We also started a groundbreaking project: Get It While You Can. One of our members of staff - who started out using our services - had a great idea to put peer support workers in police custody rooms. The thinking was that right after someone’s arrested is the ideal time to get support. We also thought speaking to someone who’d been through similar experiences would help them see that there was a path forward.

It was an innovative, effective idea. It wasn’t the norm to make a connection between drugs and crime, use early intervention or peer support, but it worked.

Going nationwide

Get It While You Can was so successful that we wanted to roll it out nationwide and help as many people as possible. But the name ‘Sussex Association For The Rehabilitation of Offenders’ didn’t feel right now we weren’t just operating in Sussex. It was time for a change, so we chose a new name: Crime Reduction Initiatives.

As we started running projects across the country, we noticed another issue that was playing a role in the cycle of drug addiction and crime. People couldn’t get access to drugs like methadone fast enough to help them tackle their addiction, and that made it harder for them to make the changes they wanted to see in their lives. We developed new ways to make access to treatment quicker and better, like in-house prescribing, day programmes and counselling services.

Becoming Change Grow Live

In 2012 we merged with Sova, another charity working to help people change their lives and fulfil their potential.

Around the same time, we also noticed another change in our service users. We saw that more and more of the people we were supporting hadn’t committed a crime. Our name - Crime Reduction Initiative - was a barrier, because they felt like our services weren’t for them.

So in 2016 we changed our name again, to Change Grow Live. We took the name from the phases of our recovery programme: foundations of change, foundations of growth, foundations of life. It showed how we worked and helped tackle the stigma around seeking help.

2017 was also a year of change and growth for us. A charity called Lifeline was in crisis, and the vital services it ran were at risk of closing. We stepped in and took over some of those services to keep them running for their users.

The future

Since we first started, one goal has driven everything we do: to make a difference in people’s lives. That’s still what drives us now. We know that what we do works, so we want as many people as possible to benefit. That’s how we’ll make our vision - to change society for the better - a reality.

Independent Voices

There's now less than a month to go before the probation service effectively disappears completely from public view behind a civil service wall of tight information command and control. We've all become pretty much used to Napo effectively disappearing from the stage, staff are increasingly unwilling or feel unable to speak openly and once proudly independent campaigning voices become silenced, either through contracts, personnel changes or some form of pressure either implied or explicit. The tumbleweed is on the horizon even here, but before it takes over fully, lets continue to highlight whatever independent voices remain. Here's 'Getafix and then the outgoing Frances Crook of the Howard League:-         

"Man down the pub tells me that in my area the 6 current accommodation workers are being slashed to 1 under the new contract and will hold 'group' sessions instead of 1-2-1's. Not sure how that will provide the same level of service, or cover any diversity or vulnerability issues."

The above comment from yesterday reminds me that Ad Action pulled out from the original TR bidding process for this very reason. Working one to one wasn't a profitable option for their bid partners. Groups got bums on seats, more people, more money, and really that was what the endeavour was all about.

I'm minded too of St Mungos, (who's staff are currently on strike) where their contract to help homeless people came at the cost of having to share information and data with immigration services and the Home Office.

I'm reminded too of the work programme, where many charities took the King's shilling, and whilst vehemently opposed to benefit sanctions, were required to report claimants they engaged with to the DWP leading directly to sanctions.

I also remember the gagging clauses imposed on them, which for many charities left them unable to lobby on their own causes.

When it comes to service delivery there's a huge void between delivering on a social value ethos and a corporate delivery model. It has to be a conflict of interest, and I fear the third sector may suffer some considerable reputational damage from their involvement in this.

I find it very distasteful that even Clinks are using phrases such as 'supply chains'. They are of course referring to people, not Fair Trade coffee bean. Can a charity really remain a charity with its own personal ethos and mission statement when it becomes a member of state agency? What exactly will the Kings Shilling cost them in the end? Could they see their future CEOs being selected for them by the likes of Maximus or Seetec if they're all involved in the same markets?

I think the risk of reputational damage and loss of independence is massive for the third sector in this venture. They cried foul after being used as bid candy for TR, but I'm inclined to think they may live to view that as a lucky escape from which they'd wished they'd learned some lessons.

'Getafix

--oo00oo--

Frances crook writing for Politics Home:-

Fewer arrests would ease the strain on our over-burdened probation service post-Covid

The last decade has been tumultuous for probation in England and Wales. A service that had operated well for more than a century was torn into fragments in a disastrous part-privatisation.

Performance declined sharply and public confidence ebbed away as high-profile failings and parliamentary inquiries made the headlines. Companies went bust. Demoralised staff watched on as systems were scrapped and maps redrawn. And then came the pandemic.

As the country went into lockdown in March last year, this was a service already under tremendous strain. About a quarter of a million people were under probation supervision, and a research bulletin published that month by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation revealed that less than half of staff believed they had manageable caseloads. A lack of suitable accommodation meant that one in six men, and one in five women, were leaving prison with nowhere to live.

These challenges grew more acute as the realities of the pandemic became clear. Additional funding was found for emergency accommodation, but face-to-face monitoring was pared back to comply with government social distancing guidelines. Supervision over the phone became the norm and support services that probation relies upon, such as mental health and drug and alcohol provision, were reduced. Unpaid work and attendance at courses dropped dramatically.

Many children under supervision had no education or training. Doorstep visits, emails and phone calls replaced face-to-face meetings, while children without access to the internet found it particularly difficult to receive regular contact.

All these changes, and the backlog of cases that has grown as a result, have heaped more pressure on staff who are about to see their working practices alter once again. The failed Transforming Rehabilitation experiment introduced in 2014, which split probation in two and placed much of the work under the responsibility of private companies, has been scrapped. In its place comes a reunified model to be delivered by the public sector.

The Howard League opposed Transforming Rehabilitation from the start and campaigned for the reunification of probation. The new model is undoubtedly a step forward although, as it will be delivered through Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, the charity remains concerned that it will not give probation the independence it needs from Whitehall bureaucracy. These arrangements will become increasingly important if, as seems likely, the service is asked to supervise more people. The government’s plans to recruit more police officers and inflate sentencing, twinned with the impact of lockdown on relationships and employment, will only add to the strain.

Prevention is always better than cure, and so the focus now must be on taking measures that stop people being swept into the criminal justice system in the first place. We can reduce crime and ease the burden on probation – as well as prisons – if we divert people with difficulties to services that can help them, rather than arresting them and bringing them into a system that is overstretched.

This is why, throughout the pandemic, the Howard League has continued to work with police forces to reduce arrests of women and children. By promoting good practice and encouraging officers to use their professional discretion, we have helped reduce arrests of children by more than 70 per cent over the last decade, giving hundreds of thousands of boys and girls a brighter future. We are trying to match this success with women and hope this will provide a template for doing the same for men.

This is the innovation we need to see to help a reunified probation service meet the challenges ahead.

Frances Crook is chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform

The Voluntary Sector View

Now the winners have been announced, here's what the voluntary or third sector thinks as voiced by their cheerleader Clinks:- 

What part will voluntary organisations play on the first day of the new probation service?

The reformed and reunified probation service will launch on 26th June. Today, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has announced which organisations have been successful in bidding for contracts to provide resettlement and rehabilitation services to support people under the new model. The contracts are separated into three categories: Accommodation; Education, training and employment; Personal wellbeing; and Women – specialist holistic service to support women under probation supervision.

These services have been commissioned through the Dynamic Framework. When the reforms were announced the Secretary of State reiterated commitment and recognition of the voluntary sector’s role in delivering rehabilitation and resettlement services, highlighting that our sector has “some of the best experience, innovation and skill to tackle these issues.”

Reading the list of organisations given contracts, it seems that this commitment has been realised. 88% of lead providers are voluntary sector organisations and approximately two thirds of the contract values have been awarded to voluntary sector organisations. This is a significant and positive change from the current model – our #TrackTR research found that the voluntary sector was under represented, under pressure and under resourced.

Limited role for small and specialist organisations

However, scratch under the surface and it’s clear that, while voluntary sector organisations make up a significant number of those who will be delivering these services, the commissioning process has failed to draw upon the vibrancy in our sector and the range and breadth of services it provides. The voluntary sector working in criminal justice is made up of approximately 1,700 organisations who are predominantly small, local and specialist. But across 110 contracts to deliver rehabilitation and resettlement services there are only a small number of lead providers – just 26, of which 23 are voluntary organisations.

Across the full supply chains for these contracts there are a total of 81 organisations, 73 of which are voluntary organisations. Over half of those organisations have an income of over £1m. If we compare this to the criminal justice voluntary sector as a whole, only 27% of organisations generate an income over £1m and 29% of specialist criminal justice organisations have an income of less than £100k.

As we know, racially monioritisd people are disproportionally represented among those under probation supervision and a recent HMI Probation report said probation must reset and raise the standard of work with racially minoritised people. Whilst we are pleased to see some organisations led by and focused on racially minoritized people in supply chains, there are only three. It is clear that these organisations are not being fully utilised to meet the needs of these people. We are also very concerned that none of the lead providers of services in Wales are Welsh organisations and only three such organisations have a place in supply chains.

It is extremely disappointing that the results of this commissioning process mean that people under probation supervision risk missing out on services delivered by small but vital organisations with strong local links at the heart of communities and with specialist knowledge of people’s needs to support them to move away from crime.

Education, training and employment; and Accommodation contracts

When plans for the new probation model were first drawn up these contracts were going to be smaller, covering Police and Crime Commissioner areas. However, due to the impact of Covid-19 on HMPPS commissioning capacity it was decided to reduce the number of contracts and increase their geographical footprint to cover whole probation regions.

Voluntary sector delivery is least represented in the Education, Training and Employment contracts with only one lead provider from the sector – The Growth Company. In England and Wales a significant number of small and specialist criminal justice voluntary sector organisations support people with their education, training and employment needs. But because these probation contracts must be delivered across entire probation regions, many of these organisations with a local footprint were unable to bid. It is a real shame not to see some of these organisations represented in supply chains. Of all the contracts these have the least extensive supply chains.

It’s a similar story with the accommodation contracts. 9 out of these 14 contracts have gone to voluntary sector organisations but the supply chains are quite limited.

During the bidding process we received significant feedback from voluntary organisations that the values of the contracts were too low for them to deliver services in partnership. Some were also concerned about the technical requirements for the contracts shutting out some organisations.

Personal wellbeing contracts

The personal wellbeing contracts include the provision of emotional welbeing, family and significant others, lifestyle and association, and social inclusion services. In Wales HMPPS commissioned a separate and specific personal wellbeing service for young adults. These contracts were let at Police and Crime Commissioner level and after feedback following the commissioning of the Education, training and employment and Accommodation contracts the threshold for some of the technical contract requirements was lowered.

34 of the 45 Personal wellbeing contracts have gone to the voluntary sector but there are only 6 voluntary sector lead providers. The extent of supply chains across these lead providers varies. In some areas there are several supply chain partners representing a range of organisations that deliver specialist services or work with particular groups, for example organisations that work to support family relationships and organisations led by and focused on racially minoritised people. In others they are significantly more limited than we would have liked – in three contract areas there are no subcontractors at all, and in 11 areas there are only a couple of organisations in the supply chains.

Overall, the extent that the supply chains involve small and specialist organisations is limited and in many areas lead providers have the same organisations in supply chains across different contract areas indicating limited involvement of organisations with local links and knowledge. We are significantly concerned that the diversity of support that exists within the voluntary sector is not being sufficiently drawn upon.

During the commissioning process we heard from organisations of the challenges they were facing in building diverse supply chains. Organisations told us that the timeframe for bidding was not conducive to building these relationships and that the contract values were too low to enable significant involvement of partners.

Women’s services contracts

The women’s contracts were let at Police and crime commissioner level and are to provide a service to women under probation supervision incorporating Education, training and employment; Accommodation; and Personal wellbeing services.

Initially HMPPS had planned to only commission a specialist women’s service for personal wellbeing and we are extremely pleased that following our feedback this fuller specialist service was commissioned recognising the need for women to receive a more holistic women-centred service to meet a wider range of needs.

Voluntary organisations will be delivering all of these contracts, the vast majority of whom are specialist women’s centres. Overall, there is a broader and more varied spread of lead providers, and also sub-contractors where supply chains are present. This is testament to the already strong relationships that exist among specialist women’s organisations making it easier to quickly build partnerships during this process. However, specialist women’s organisations remain concerned that the service specification does not encompass all services that women in contact with the criminal justice system need – in particular there is no focus on domestic abuse and sexual violence. The sector also found the commissioning process extremely challenging and so complex that some organisations chose not to or were unable to get involved.

Looking to the future

The contracts announced today are just the beginning. Beyond these ‘day one’ contracts, Regional Probation Directors will have budgets of over £100k a year to commission further services across the following categories:

• Finance, benefits and debt
• Dependency and recovery
• Young adults (18-25 years old)
• Black, Asian, and minority ethnic
• Restorative justice
• Cognitive and behavioural change
• Service user involvement.

Regional Probation Directors will also be responsible for re-commissioning the contracts announced today – which go live on 26th June – when they come to an end (31st March 2025 for all categories except Women’s services which will end on 31st March 2026).

In addition, Regional Probation Directors will have access to a Regional Outcomes and Innovation Fund from which they could commission services which support the reduction of reoffending but which are not part of enforceable sentence delivery requirements.

These services will all be commissioned through the Dynamic Framework and other commissioners could commission or co-commission services from the Dynamic Framework in any of the 14 service categories. The Dynamic Framework therefore remains a really important route for voluntary sector organisations to be involved in delivering services to people under probation supervision. Find out more about how to qualify here.

It is vital that Regional Probation Directors ensure the voluntary sector is represented in future probation contracts, but also go further to ensure the vibrancy and diversity of this sector (which has on the whole been excluded so far) is fully utilised – in particular the skills and expertise of small, specialist and local organisations.

To make sure this happens voluntary organisations need good communication: accurate, transparent, and timely information, with as much notice possible of bidding opportunities. This is vital for providers to build partnerships, bid for grants and contracts and mobilise services.

To ensure small and specialist organisations can engage in future commissioning opportunities HMPPS should recognise that complex contracts disadvantage small organisations and there needs to be greater use of grants to commission services at a local level. Grants should be the default mechanism for commissioning services, with contracts used as an exception when grants are not appropriate.

To ensure the knowledge and existing expertise that exists in local areas is taken advantage of there needs to be significant emphasis on partnership work, co-design with the voluntary sector and co-commissioning services with partners, other commissioners and charitable funders.

Clinks is currently building relationships with Regional Probation Directors and their teams to support them to engage with the voluntary sector and draw upon its vibrant and broad knowledge and expertise.

MoJ Announces Winners

"A few quid being handed out, and a few regular customers in the mix, but here's the full list of contract winners to work with probation by region."

£200 million investment in rehab services to cut crime

Charities and companies which help rehabilitate offenders have been awarded around £200 million of Government funding to help cut crime in the new probation system.

• Services to provide specialist housing, employment and training support to reduce reoffending
• Multi-million-pound contracts awarded to more than 25 organisations
• Providers to work with Probation Service to rehabilitate offenders and cut crime

The investment of an initial £195 million has been awarded to 26 organisations across England and Wales to provide vital support services that help reduce reoffending, such as employment and housing advice. This includes over £45 million awarded to services tailored to female offenders to address their specific needs and the underlying causes of their crimes as part of the Government’s pledge to see fewer women go to prison. The total funding awarded could rise to £270 million if contracts with these organisations are extended to their full terms.

By tackling the drivers of crime and getting offenders’ lives back on track, these services will help to prevent thousands of people becoming victims each year and save some of the £18 billion annual cost of repeat offending.

The move is one of the improvements being made to the Probation Service next month as responsibility for supervising low- and medium-risk offenders comes back under public sector control. The delivery of unpaid work in community sentences and behavioural change programmes are also being brought back in-house.

Prisons and Probation Minister Alex Chalk said:

"Tackling things like homelessness, unemployment and illiteracy is vital to our drive to cut crime but these issues cannot be solved by our brilliant probation staff alone. The expertise and support of charities and companies like those we are funding today plays a crucial role in helping offenders to rehabilitate and lead a crime-free life."

Almost £46 million has been awarded to charities which provide wraparound support to women in the criminal justice system, acknowledging the complex array of issues female offenders particularly face. Organisations including The Nelson Trust, Women in Prison, and a partnership between the St Giles Trust and the Wise Group will work with vulnerable women to help them get their lives back on track. This significant investment provides long-term support to women’s centres and other dedicated services for women serving community sentences or leaving prison.

Prison leavers are around 50 per cent more likely to reoffend if released with nowhere to stay so over £33 million will be shared by charities helping the homeless, including St Mungo’s, Shelter and NACRO. Their work will help get offenders off the streets into stable accommodation and work alongside the Probation Service’s new temporary accommodation service.

A further £33 million has been awarded to companies such as Seetec, Maximus and Ingeus which provide offenders with skills training and employment support. With their expertise in helping people find work they will partner with probation staff and the New Futures Network in the Prison Service to support offenders into jobs.

Up to £118 million has been awarded to organisations which work with offenders to address personal issues, including Catch 22, The Forward Trust and The Growth Company. This ranges from support accessing mental health services to help with managing complex family relationships.

The funding has been awarded through a new process designed to make it easier for charities and other third-sector organisations to access funding from Government and around two-thirds of the funding has been awarded to registered charities. In addition, many lead organisations are using the specialist skills of smaller organisations to help deliver services, with another 50 organisations, mostly in the voluntary sector, in their supply chains.

Notes to Editors

Women’s and personal support services have been procured at Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) level, while each provider for Education, Training and Employment services will work across one of the twelve probation regions in England and Wales. Accommodation services will also be provided at a regional level except in Wales where they have been procured at PCC level.

For the first time, the Probation Service is jointly commissioning the full range of rehabilitative services in Greater Manchester with the region’s Combined Authority from July 2021. In London, women’s services will be commissioned jointly with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) by providing funding to MOPAC’s existing providers for an extension and expansion of the current service. A new commissioning process will be undertaken for services from 2022.

Full list of contracts awarded according to region

Please note, the figures given are for the standard term of the contracts which are 2 years and 9 months, unless specified (see each contract below). Note Women’s services contracts are for 3 years and 9 months. For Accommodation and Education, Training and Employment services these are predicted values.

East Midlands

Women’s Services
Lincolnshire Action Trust - £544,992 (Lincolnshire)
Changing Lives - £1,240,656 (Leicestershire)
Nottingham Women’s Centre - £1,831,193 (Nottinghamshire)
Women’s Work Derbyshire - £1,509,887 (Derbyshire)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
The Forward Trust - £998,975 (Lincolnshire)
Ingeus - £6,021,064 (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire)
Accommodation
Nacro - £2,963,412
Education, Training and Employment
Ingeus - £2,913,656

East of England

Women’s Services
Advance - £2,128,122 (Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire)
St Giles Wise (SGW) - £2,177,655 (Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Suffolk) (Northamptonshire – until June 2023)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
Nacro - £3,054,280 (Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Hertfordshire)
The Forward Trust - £4,374,002 (Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Norfolk, Essex)
Accommodation
Seetec - £2,883,298
Education, Training and Employment
Seetec - £2,729,155

Kent, Surrey and Sussex

Women’s Services
Advance - £1,317,735 (Kent)
Brighton Women’s Centre - £1,167,285 (Sussex)
Women in Prison - £588,630 (Surrey)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
The Forward Trust - £2,557,318 (Sussex, Surrey)
Seetec - £2,135,134 (Kent)
Accommodation
Seetec - £1,977,871
Education, Training and Employment
Seetec - £1,903,774

London

Women’s Services
In London, women’s services will be commissioned jointly with the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) from mid-2022 with the Probation Service providing funding to MOPAC’s existing providers until then.
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
Catch 22 - £12,501,519
Accommodation
St Mungo - £4,882,708
Education, Training and Employment
Maximus - £4,999,117

North East

Women’s Services
Changing Lives - £4,253,089 (Cleveland, Northumbria)
St Giles Wise (SGW) - £866,581 (Durham)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
Ingeus - £3,032,996 (Northumbria)
St Giles Wise (SGW) - £3,177,664 (Durham, Cleveland)
Accommodation
Thirteen Housing Group - £2,740,568
Education, Training and Employment
Ingeus - £2,903,359

North West

Women’s Services
Lancashire Women - £1,791,947 (Lancashire)
PSS UK - £3,050,765 (Cheshire, Merseyside)
Women’s Community Matters - £319,435 (Cumbria – until June 2023) (Subject to contract)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
The Growth Company - £5,732,481 (Lancashire, Merseyside) (Cumbria – until June 2023)
Seetec - £2,108,173 (Cheshire)
Accommodation
Seetec - £2,988,646
Education, Training and Employment
Maximus - £3,151,152

South Central

Women’s Services
Advance - £2,111,499 (Hampshire) (Thames Valley – until June 2023)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
Catch 22 - £4,091,542 (Hampshire, Thames Valley)
Accommodation
Ingeus - £1,828,763
Education, Training and Employment
Ingeus - £1,889,412

South West

Women’s Services
Nelson Trust - £2,897,254 (Avon & Somerset, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire)
The Women’s Centre Cornwall - £1,765,668 (Devon & Cornwall, Dorset)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
Catch 22 - £5,706,872 (Avon & Somerset, Dorset) (Wiltshire, Devon & Cornwall, Gloucestershire – all until June 2023)
Accommodation
Seetec - £2,852,365
Education, Training and Employment
Seetec - £2,624,658

Wales

Women’s Services
The Nelson Trust - £1,992,162 (Dyfed-Powys, Gwent, South Wales – all until June 2023)
PSS UK - £432,225 (North Wales – until June 2023)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships (Young Adults and 26+)
St Giles Wise (SGW) - £6,011,313 (Dyfed-Powys, Gwent – all until June 2023) (South Wales, North Wales)
Accommodation
Forward Trust - £2,006,168 (Dyfed-Powys, Gwent, South Wales)
Nacro - £633,425 (North Wales)
Education, Training and Employment
Maximus - £2,440,833

West Midlands

Women’s Services
Changing Lives - £6,095,524 (West Midlands, Warwickshire)(Staffordshire – until June 2023)
Willowdene - £1,014,080 (West Mercia)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
Catch 22 - £1,639,494 (West Mercia)
Ingeus - £8,324,204 (Staffordshire, West Midlands) (Warwickshire – until June 2023)
Accommodation
Nacro - £3,823,196
Education, Training and Employment
Maximus - £4,147,256

Yorkshire & The Humber

Women’s Services
Changing Lives - £1,835,581 (South Yorkshire)
St Giles Wise (SGW) - £1,072,461 (North Yorkshire)
Together Women - £4,604,673 (Humberside, West Yorkshire)
Support services for issues including mental health, family and relationships
Foundation - £1,246,789 (North Yorkshire)
Ingeus - £6,671,666 (Humberside, West Yorkshire)
The Growth Company - £2,593, 567 (South Yorkshire)
Accommodation
Shelter - £4,068,990
Education, Training and Employment
The Growth Company - £4,134,343

Greater Manchester

Greater Manchester Combined Authority – For the first time, the Probation Service is jointly commissioning the full range of rehabilitative services in Greater Manchester with the region’s Combined Authority from July 2021.

MoJ Proved Wrong

We've covered the astonishing decision by the MoJ to defund Circles of Support and Accountability before and this evaluation report serves to confirm just how bad decision-making is at Marsham Street:-

An Evaluation of the ‘Completing the Circle’ Project 

On 25th November 2020 Circles UK hosted a seminar to launch the results of an in-depth, independent evaluation study undertaken by a research team at the Sexual Offences, Crime and Misconduct Research Unit (SOCMRU), Nottingham Trent University. The evaluation study captured the findings of a four-year project entitled ‘Completing the Circle: A Community Approach to Reducing Sexual Abuse.’ Over 100 participants attended the event, representing agencies and organisations from countries as far afield as Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand. 

What was the Completing the Circle Project? 

Loneliness, isolation, and alienation are known high risk factors for sexual recidivism. Circles are a unique programme for reducing these risks. Circles work with high-risk sexual harm causers to augment stretched statutory provision for this group of offenders and so help prevent further sexual abuse. 

In a Circle, 4-6 local Volunteers work with an individual who has been assessed as a high risk. The ‘Circle’ meets for at least 12 months. The person who has committed a sexual offence/s – known as the Core Member – is supported by the Volunteers to reintegrate safely into the community. The Volunteers also hold him/her/they accountable for their past and future behaviours. 

In 2015 the National Lottery Community Fund awarded a grant of £2,040,394 to a consortium of Circle Providers brought together and led by Circles UK. The Consortium was tasked to establish delivery in parts of the country where Circles did not exist. These areas were Merseyside, London, Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Northamptonshire. 

Outcomes 

Results were impressive. In just over four years, Circles Providers were set up in all previously ‘un-served’ areas, 188 Circles were delivered and almost 800 Volunteers were recruited, trained, and supervised. Together these Volunteers spent nearly 40,000 hours engaged in Circle activities. Qualitative results, drawing from a thematic analysis of reports compiled at the end of each Circle, along with interviews with a sample of key participants, produced evidence which markedly illustrated the complexities surrounding the Core Member client group, the individualised and distinctly ‘person centred’ character of the Circles model and the skill and tenacity demonstrated by Volunteers.

A number of statistically significant findings were also identified: 

• Risk Reduced 

The risk of sexual reoffending presented by Core Members declined. Shifts in dynamic risk factors were measured using an established tool called the Dynamic Risk Review (DRR). Analysis revealed that the risk associated with ‘dynamic’, changeable variables reduced after three months involvement with a Circle, with further dynamic risk reductions over time. Impressively, Core Members in the study demonstrated an 18% reduction in dynamic risk scores over the course of their Circle.

These incremental reductions in dynamic risk over time reinforce a long-established understanding that effecting change among the serious sexual harm causers targeted by Circles requires time, commitment, and persistence. There is no ‘short fix’ when it comes to supporting Core Members to alter damaging and often deeply entrenched behaviours. However, relationships developed over a prolonged period have a demonstrable and positive effect. 

• Reintegration Improved 

Protective factors known to inhibit the risk of sexual recidivism also showed significant improvement across a range of variables, including accommodation, the number of stable, emotional relationships, employment and purposeful activities and hobbies. 

After only 3 months on a Circle: 

• 96% of Core Members were in stable and suitable accommodation; this increased to 100% at 9 months. 

• 26% of Core Members were in paid or voluntary employment; this increased to 42% at 9 months.

• Wellbeing Increased 

Emotional wellbeing is an important protective factor which research has shown contributes to desistance from sexual offending. The study results demonstrated that Circles significantly improve the emotional wellbeing of Core Members. At the start of their Circle, each Core Member had significantly poorer emotional wellbeing than the average person. Their emotional wellbeing improved significantly, however, throughout the duration of their Circle. The data demonstrate an 18% increase in wellbeing scores, with 67% of the Core Members demonstrating significant improvements in wellbeing by the time their Circle came to an end.

The Wider Benefits 

There was also a pay-off for local citizens and communities. As well as the improved community safety afforded by Circles, the evaluation highlighted the reciprocal nature of volunteering in a Circle. Findings taken from comparisons of pre- and post-training questionnaires revealed that the training delivered to Circles Volunteers was informative and impactful. Furthermore, over time, the confidence levels of Volunteers increased, and they acquired transferable skills which sometimes improved their employability, as this quote demonstrates.

Conclusion 

‘Completing the Circle’ was an ambitious four-year project which set out to end the ‘postcode lottery’ of access to Circles. It achieved this objective and generated fresh evidence of the far-reaching community safety and rehabilitative benefits of Circles. 

Circles UK wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the National Lottery for funding the project and the research team at the Sexual Offences, Crime and Misconduct Research Unit (SOCMRU), Nottingham Trent University. We also wish to pay tribute to the Circles Providers that participated as delivery partners and whose commitment and expertise were instrumental to the project’s success. These were: 

Circles South East https://circlessoutheast.org.uk/
The Safer Living Foundation https://www.saferlivingfoundation.org/
Change, Grow, Live https://www.changegrowlive.org/
Re:shape (organisation has ceased operation)
CROPT (organisation has ceased operation)

Leah Warwick
National Development Manager Circles UK

30th March 2021

Charity Work

In September last year, Alice Dawnay, CEO of Switchback, addressed a New Philanthropic Capital virtual conference on 'What Probation Service reforms mean for charities', alongside HMI Justin Russell who had much of interest to say. I notice Lord Ramsbotham was in attendance and earnestly hope he will carry on with his work in keeping the probation ethos alive.

“What drives us at Switchback is making this system work. This is about behaviour change and building a system of challenge and opportunity that is going to work for the people in it. The starting point has to be the human beings at the heart. The system needs to be built around them; it has never worked to fit people around a payment structure.”

Not living in London, I wasn't aware of the Switchback charity and its work with young men leaving prison. Formed only some 12 years ago by Alice Dawnay, a beneficiary of a Churchill Travelling Fellowship, it won the 2019 prestigious Longford Prize and boasts some impressive solid gold backers:-  

The Goldsmiths’ Company Charity is proud to be supporting the Switchback Initiative.

Switchback is an award-winning charity helping young Londoners to find a way out of the justice system and make real-lasting change in their lives. By providing intensive one-to-one support either side of the prison gate alongside real-work training after release, they support 18-30 year-old men (Trainees) to build a stable life they can be proud of.

The Switchback model is centred on a meaningful relationship between Switchback Mentor and Trainee, beginning in prison and lasting as long as it takes. Switchback Mentors work with the same person in prison and in the community, offering them the continuity, support and opportunities they need to make positive change happen for themselves in the immediate and long term.

Switchback challenge and encourage Trainees to take control and build stability across all areas of life, spanning 10 Switchback Pathways from housing to health. By combining consistent 1-to-1 support with training in a real work environment, Switchback enable Trainees to make a fundamental shift in their mindset and lifestyle. And it works; Switchback Trainees are six times less likely to reoffend than other offenders (9% v’s 49%).

Building on 11 years of impact, Switchback work with others and share what they’ve learned to inspire change across the justice system and beyond.

Losing the Plot

Probation of Offenders Act 1907 Clause 4d : "It shall be the duty of a probation officer, subject to the directions of the court - to advise, assist and befriend him, and, when necessary, to endeavour to find him suitable employment." 

As we continue to struggle with an increasingly bureaucratic, punitive and fractious probation service, it's worth remembering that when this enlightened and pioneering legislation was enacted, it predated the arrival of the social work profession; the court disposal was not a criminal conviction; and the recipient had to give consent. Interestingly, the Act remains in force in the Republic of Ireland. 

--oo00oo--

"Are you honestly saying probation officers should undertake 21 months of training and be paid £30-35k to go to the cinema?"

I really can't fathom out what point this person is trying to make? Why should encouraging our often dis-enfranshised, dis-engaged and socially excluded service users to do different things and getting to know them outside of a formal interview room, be "beneath" the work of a probation officer, irrespective of what they are paid? What are you saying the role of a PO should be, as all I see are risk management and sentence plans about "addressing lifestyle", "engaging in pro-social activities" or "moving away from peers", with no substance or skill attached on behalf of the PO to actually making this happen.

I once took a service user to the theatre (in my own time and while I very briefly mentioned this in Delius records I feared my employer actually finding out which itself speaks volumes). And why did I do this? Because I was getting NOTHING meaningful out of him in office visits and wanted to open his mind to "another world" and felt he had the potential to enjoy and experience other things in life (he'd never been to the theatre before, was a chronic alcoholic, it was actually a free event, but he had no idea these things even existed or how to access them). Am I bad probation officer? Would you not class this as an "intervention to assess and manage risk"?

As I recall it, the recent thread of posts started off due to a (yet another) commissioning proposal about NPS employing "mentors" to "support" our vulnerable and isolated during COVID19. So while such mentors get to know the "real person" outside of an office context, our jobs once again become fragmented - we try to "manage risk" with only partial information because the person is engaging with so many other agencies, or get in trouble if we weren't effective enough at "joint partnership working". We've fragmented off the job to so many disproportionate and disparate agencies, that it's no wonder our job is often described as reading a million emails and phoning people all day long, interspersed with "check ups" with our service users about whether they have done X or Y with another agency - personally I don't think that's worth £35K either, and writing crappy OASYS isn't either.

So in response to this poster, why should it be OK for a mentor to "take our service users to the cinema" and not develop such relationships ourselves? Why is "mentoring" seen a valid endeavour, but probation officers delivering mentoring not?

Be warned that the more we accept our jobs being farmed off to (generally lower paid) keyworkers, ETE workers, mentors, resettlement agencies, drug workers, charities, mental health workers, generally none of which are particularly more trained than us to deliver useful interventions in their respective fields, that our role will become even less necessary than it already is. Just look at the list of "day one services" under the new model - ETE, housing, "emotional support", accredited programmes, and I believe "one to one" interventions are being delivered by a separate team too - just what exactly is left to do for the Probation officer paid £35K?

*****

Equally, be warned that if we don't farm off the lower-skilled aspects of our work to 'generally lower paid' keyworkers etc, then we are at greater risk of becoming the lower paid partner in the arrangement ourselves. We may all aspire to be part of a nobler profession, but there's a limit. And to be frank, what would the justification be for, say, accompanying a service user to buy new bedding, or escorting them to a healthcare appointment if someone else can help out (aside from just limiting the pressures of our own workloads)?

*****

NPS employing "mentors"? Nope. Let's look at it again: "I understand the probation service is in discussions with a major volunteering charity about providing volunteers who can support the more vulnerable people on probation, mentor and befriend them." They're going to pay someone like Bubb to oversee carefully selected folk to do the work for nowt. Gratis. So you can be chained for many more hours inputting data & taking the shit when it all goes tits up. Haven't heard much from Napo or Unison about this. Anyone?

******
Animal farm Orwellian dystopia probation. It's already impossible to see who the real leaders are. If the work is shed externally there will be less of a need for all staff. Are we all so daft on this blog. Thatcher's legacy the privatised structures are all about self employment. If you once worked for telecom you now work in a franchise. Public sector lost staffing to private ownerships on reduced pensions and piece meal working. There can be no advocating our work out. Instead you must define the professional work and get it established as key core PO functions. Stop the rot.

******
I agree. I'm the person who started this initial thread. To confirm, by stating the other individuals were "generally lower paid", I did not mean to infer they have lessor skills; in fact, I made a point of saying they are no more or less trained than us to deliver the work in their allotted fields. By de-professionalising probation and commissioning out aspects of the work which I derogatively described as "farming out", they have been able to allow such work to be paid at far lower rates, with far less employment or pension rights, in the name of "charity" or "third sector" work. Obviously they tried to do this also with CRC, who (alongside NPS with reliance on PSO), were allowed to employ "responsible officers" or such like, to do the same work, again at far less pay. So we should all be worried, unless as others have stated we re-claim the professional ground and not accept that, as [above] seems to, taking a one-dimensional view about "buying bedding".

I for one feel very privileged to be working for what is still a public service, with (in comparison to many) a good rate of pay which includes other benefits such as a good pension, sick pay, fantastic holidays and generally good employment rights and stability, not to mention job satisfaction. I had the choice to work in the private sector (which I did for many years as a graduate) - had I stayed there the pay may well have been better now, but without all the other benefits mentioned, and the work and employment culture sucked; targets and QA and monitoring existed in insurance too, worse so. What I lament in probation is that we measure the wrong things and place too much emphasis on whether X or Y was done, rather than the meaning behind those things, and the constant "referring out" worries me greatly.

As for [above] your comment has sickened me. I can think of a hundred different reasons why "buying bedding" and "accompanying someone to a medical appointment" should be done by the PO and not a third party. Using these opportunities to see the person in the "real world", how they operate, teaching and practicing new skills, gaining confidence - you think sitting in the office allows that? Not to mention all the millions of reasons I mentioned in my original post about taking someone to a free theatre event. If you really think "buying bedding" is all about the bedding, then I really fear for your service users and what they can possibly gain from you sitting in your office with the pontificating and derisory attitude you have displayed on this blog.

******

I recall a drive to recruit and work with volunteers back awhile, pre TR. It created more work in trying to organise it than it achieved positive outcomes. If the organising of volunteers is outsourced and monetised it will be one of two things: highly bureaucratic with lots of vetting, training, etc, or cheap and very dodgy.

*****
Many many moons ago... I started my probation journey as a volunteer. It was an in-house project with a Probation Area, overseen by a senior manager. After three months' intensive training & clearance I was allocated to work with an inner city team where any of the POs in the team could submit suggestions for work they would like me to undertake with their cases. The volunteer manager would oversee the suggested tasks & select what they felt was possible/appropriate. The most common work involved taking family members to see cases incarcerated in prisons beyond the reach of a day return on public transport. Any direct work with a case was supervised by or very specifically laid out by the PO, with very clear instructions.

I had direct access to & supervision by the senior manager running the project & if there were any concerns about a situation I was removed from the task & thoroughly de-briefed. The project ended after two years when the senior manager took another role & no-one else applied for the secondment. I suspect it was also an expensive project. I don't know how many other volunteers were involved. It was certainly as intense as my training placements and prepared me well for my career. I dread to imagine what the 2021 version will be like.

******
High risk is where it's always been at really. In the 70 and 90s the focus was sharpened to resources follow risk. The old softly softly bus fares and befriending fund dried up fast to pay for managerialism expenses and business MBAs for middle managers. It saw the offender services decline and the training aided by the new direction of Labour paving a way for PFI hostels, bringing in outsiders and coming from new partnerships. We all lost the plot perhaps, being too relaxed.

The work was different then and so was the nature of employees. Today staff are grotesquely disfigured from care and nurture to value only numbers a grossly new metric to qualify throughput and quantities. Quality takes time, money and patience. Three things they do not understand. To get back to anything half way near, will require a cultural shift. The latest cohorts were not trained or selected for the traits needed to reform reflect or value experience of other. We are stuck with a monstrous machine of technocrats craving and striving for new data streams and by cramming numbers not the three things required.

I understand the ongoing mud slinging of which this is part will not bring the changes anytime soon. We all realise the Grayling destruction will take another generation before the rebuilding. This in my view remains impossible while politics control the dogma of Tory business ideologies. Just as long as the Tories remain in government I hope.

*****
Service users have been judged and sentenced so why would advise, assist and befriend be such a difficult concept to grasp? One of the best bits of advice (after degree, 2 years CQSW and a pass or fail 1 year probationary period) was to really get to know the client, and their families. Earn their trust based on professional boundaries and compliance will follow. It seems that over the years the importance of compliance was lost to enforcement.

*****

In my mind, it's not that officers now "can't" or don't want to or don't understand the concept of advise, assist, befriend. It's that the service has tried to reduce every outcome to a measurable metric. Take point above, about "really getting to know the person and their families." This is measured by "how many times did you do a home visit", have you done an OASYS in 15 days, did you do the web (in London), have you seen the person once a week, did you use CRISSA. I've no doubt that officers in the 1980s "got away with doing little" as they do now by entering blank entries or pulling through OASYS. But the question "how did you actually get to know the person", or to what extent did meaningful engagement with their families actually make a difference, or did it? The current metrics don't improve practice for anyone, but in my view completely overwhelm motivated officers to do their jobs.

--oo00oo--

I'll end this compilation with a private communication:- 

There’s a meme going about: “Helping one person might not change the whole world, but it could change the world for one person.”

Maybe we should stick that on our letterheads where “Advise, Assist Befriend” used to be. Same stuff, basically. And chuck in the ripple effect to this argument for a Probation Service that has at its heart the welfare and progress of its clients and we are onto something. Every client that does less harm, thrives, is a human victory, plus reduction of victimisation and a saving to the public purse.

The debate here about whether the “old school” Probation Service and its ethos had an effect will never be answered by recourse to the spreadsheets. It is too complex a mash of (lack of} social provision, media, politics, legislation to find a definitive answer. Not to disparage academia: the profession was built on a rich blend of theory and practice. When that is reduced to bureaucracy, and monetisation, baby and bathwater are well and truly thrown out.

But for now, I would like to invite stories. Hard to share those stories that warm the hearts of Probation professionals given the privacy confidentially and respect that we extend to our cases. Let’s give it a go, carefully. Your starter for 10: Names and details changed to protect the less than innocent:

Approached in the street by Joe, a long gone but then “prolific” and notorious client: I had worked with him a good few years back: He came with a pile of conditions and expectations from the court. Early on, while we mooched about in seemingly aimless conversations, the thing that engaged him, was core, emerged, so we went with that. It was nothing much to do with any assessment or whatever, it was just a thing he wanted and needed which was a positive: being able to read, scared and embarrassed by his inabilities. Getting there took patience and skill, and jettisoning the rigid and paltry “plan” for a genuine interest in and support of an individual requires confidence and professional autonomy. 

His pre-cons printout was like the telephone directory: both width and quality, but when I met him in the street I hadn’t seen him for a few years. He was applying for a professional qualification, what must he declare by way of criminal convictions? We went back to the office and checked. All were “spent”. Hard to credit. We high fived. He got a bit tearful. Now a family man with a small business. There’s a whole lot of cases which don’t get there of course. But some that do. They don’t come back, of course, so we lose sight of the joy, and the benefit of that.