Compare and Contrast

Seen on Twitter:-

Bronwen Elphick Great joint event with senior leadership teams today. #NorthForce in full flow. Lots of positive discussion around the next iteration of Probation Reform.

Nick Hall Great to start our journey towards a new probation system. Our approach will set the pace but more importantly it will ensure we shape the new system and not just transition to it. We will keep our focus on service users and staff at all times. #NorthForce 

Lynda Marginson CBE Positive and productive NPS NE and CRC senior leaders event today setting the direction for our joint approach to the transition into new probation model. #NorthForce

Seen on Facebook:-

The idea of Probation was simple. Instead of punishment and retribution those who committed crime were placed under the watchful eye of someone who would instead advise, assist and befriend them. This was found to work so well to rehabilitate those they worked with that our predecessors were asked to do more of it. Mind you caseloads were lower, bureaucracy almost non existent and there was no IT. Then bit by bit probation was corrupted and became more and more about compulsion, coercion and eventually punishment and control. When did it all go wrong? David Raho

*****
From the CJA 91.

*****
SNOP 1984. First of many attempts to impose centrally generated national objectives and priorities from the Home Office on a then locally integrated and community-focused service. This was still being hotly debated when I joined the service in 1987. Some liked more of a national structure whilst others like me wanted to remain closer to local authorities and independent of the central government. There was a fierce defence of localism and a resistance to the government telling the service what to do and disregarding local stakeholders but this was never really resolved satisfactorily as the service began to expand and from 1988 the management consultants arrived by the busload telling managers they weren't managing and people were wandering around like zombies asking each other where they had left their key output areas. 

In retrospect, I wish we had persisted in that resistance as our failure to unite and reject centralised control more effectively paved the way for the CJA 91 and then managerialism and bureaucracy gained traction biting chunks out of our core values and original purpose as a humanising force within the CJS. David Raho

*****

We will always be a humanising force as long as we choose to be. Every day that we treat our clients with respect under the most difficult of circumstances, we are that force. They can rearrange our sinking deckchairs all they like, there will always be good people in the service doing a good job and making a difference.

*****
I think we have to go back to basics and ask questions about what we are actually trying to achieve by our efforts and how we are going to achieve this in an ethical way that will make a positive difference both to the individual and to the community to which they belong. Making a positive difference means that they are better off as a result of having contact with us. At present the vast majority of persons coming into contact with probation, with the odd exception, arguably gain very little from the experience and some might be better off having none at all to achieve rehabilitation. 

Probation used to be about delicately balancing care and control with more of an emphasis on care whilst control as a result of working within a legal framework was there but there was room within this for rehabilitation. Care seems to have been placed on the back burner. If someone is working hard and doing a good job to meet targets in a broken system that isn’t very clear about what its purpose is then are they really doing a ‘good’ job or just the job they are expected to do or directed to do?

There are many jobs that contribute to an outcome that might be defined as not good in terms of humanity e.g. whaling, arms manufacture, military drone pilot etc although these jobs are no doubt done well by those who do them who are probably motivated in their own ways to make a difference and certainly don’t see themselves and what they are doing as necessarily bad or evil. Nevertheless I have seen many colleagues leave Probation because they can no longer bring themselves to do the job they are expected to do in the way they are expected to do it. 

These former colleagues often say that the job has changed so much that it is no longer the job that they signed up to do. One said to me recently that they were not a robot and wanted to do something good with their life that helped people and allowed them to express a greater range of human emotions. Some argue that we should consciously return to being social workers rather than continue to be enforcers and government agents propping up a morally bankrupt and unethical system designed by right wingers to punish and exact retribution on the poor and desperate in our society. Perhaps this is even more relevant given recent political developments. Do people now joining probation see themselves as social workers or something else? Perhaps they see themselves in tune with a government that couldn’t care less about the poor sick and disadvantaged? I hope not. 

Many of those we work with are both victims as well as perpetrators of crime. Many have had few opportunities and belong to communities that already suffer disproportionately from prejudice and discrimination. Do our organisations reflect and respond adequately to the demographic of the clients we work with who are overwhelmingly male and in urban areas in particular disproportionately from minority ethnic backgrounds? When I look around at the newest recruits they are often fresh faced predominantly white middle class straight out of university. Whereas in the past it is older people with life experience mostly gained outside probation (not in the CJS) who formed the backbone of the service and brought much to our work. In any case do we really work with those who commit the biggest and most antisocial and damaging crimes anymore? For instance, how many of us are supervising bankers who knowingly gambled with the future of so many people and lost, forcing the rest of society to bail them out to have another go without repercussions? 

Crime has changed and there are many now committing crimes involving the internet. I don’t see interventions geared to all the thousands involved in this. How many of us now work for corporations that have a shadowy past and are involved in or have been involved in dodgy things? Are we really part of the solution to make things better and more human in society or indeed the world or are we also part of the problem? There are for instance much more liberal criminal justice systems around in Europe or the Far East with probation services that are much more effective at bringing about rehabilitation in an apparently more humane way than ours, whereas we certainly rank near the top for punishment and enforcement (admired by much more controlled and less democratic or equitable societies) and aim to get more efficient at this because doing so will supposedly stop people reoffending. 

Our system seems to be based on a crude behaviourist theory that if you keep slapping someone harder and long enough every time they break a law whether just or not they will eventually become a law abiding ‘good‘ member of their community - a theory that has long been abandoned in the education system as ineffective. The force for and means of achieving rehabilitation in probation is arguably not as strong as it was having been attacked relentlessly over decades by the right wing media who have scapegoated those who care and care about the welfare of others. Those, for example, who suggest that skilled social work intervention might be a much better way of helping those we work with to desist from reoffending, as opposed to those methods and approaches that facilitate bureaucracy punishment and control, are often now viewed erroneously as eccentric. It would however require a strong vision and reaffirmation of probation as a distinctly rehabilitative activity, that is is distinct from the efforts and identity of other players in the criminal justice system, a service primarily concerned with welfare not punishment and retribution, if a real shift towards a less morally reprehensible system is to be achieved. I hope this occurs within my lifetime. David Raho

*****

Advise, assist, befriend so much more effective than coerce and enforce. We know good parenting is all about positive reinforcement - negative enforcement does not work so why would it work with people who need to be encouraged to change.

*****
Absolutely right. There is enough punishment, coercion and enforcement in the system that is often disproportionate to the crime that has been committed and pointless in terms of rehabilitating a person or encouraging them to make better choices or desisting from criminal behaviours. If we are about encouraging people on the path to desistance I also disagree with the view that punitive breach assists in any meaningful way. There is some evidence it can increase short term compliance but in many cases it does nothing to build a constructive relationship. 

It is my view that we should return to a more ethical morally defensible system where people give their informed consent to be supervised whether on a Probation Order or undertaking Community Work. In effect they enter into a contract with the court. If consent is not given to what should be seen as positive and constructive ways of dealing with the matter then the court should explain alternatives that may include a range of non consensual disposals that are short and structured. This would cater for all but the most high risk persons who commit crimes. I’d actually introduce a points system whereby once someone had completed particular short programmes, days of Community Work etc then they have completed their sentence. Each activity would have a value and they could follow their progress online or on an app. Idea I’ve been knocking about for a while. David Raho

Bureaucracy or Commercialisation?

We all know it's extremely difficult and often unwise to comment on cases when not in possession of the full facts, but sometimes you become aware of something that triggers a train of thought and some uneasy questioning. 

I was alerted to the following blog via Twitter yesterday and mindful of the whole TR omnishambles, it got me thinking about how all this was impacting on individual cases given the bureaucratic nightmare the split and privatisation has created. 

We know things weren't perfect before, but of course we now have commercial considerations to take account of where CRC's are concerned......  

  

Petrified and in Pain: Prohibitive Probation

Imagine finding out, aged just 49, that you have a heart condition. Imagine finding this out whilst incarcerated in prison, at the mercy of prison medical staff. Healthcare in prison is poor at best, every prisoner considered a hypochondriac who is swinging the lead to get stronger medication or a cushier ride. Imagine that heart condition getting increasingly worse. Imagine all the different medications you have to try just to be able to breathe and get through each day, and imagine how long it takes to actually get each medication when living in prison.

Imagine being taken out of prison to see the specialist while handcuffed to a prison officer. Imagine the fear of facing a potentially lethal condition, day after day on your own, knowing that every night you are locked up alone in a room, unable to summon help if you suffer a stroke or heart attack....

Now, jump forward four years. You have had two non-invasive, but still frightening and painful, procedures to try to solve the problem. Neither has worked. You have exhausted all the medication available. You are at daily risk of a stroke or heart attack and you urgently need a five and a half hour operation which is your last and only chance of a cure.

Imagine finding out you are finally listed for your operation, at your heart specialist's London hospital. Imagine the fear building up as you worry about being under general anaesthetic while parts of your heart are burnt away. But imagine the hope building up when you imagine a healthy future, a future where you can breathe properly, where your heart beats steadily and slowly, where you can once again be a productive member of society, where you can be the partner and family member you have struggled to be, where you can look forward to your wedding planned for next year, knowing you will walk down the aisle fit and strong.

My Scottish friend has her operation booked for Wednesday. It's an urgent operation and so she has been placed high up the list. But, as it stands today, she won't be going.........

She left prison 15 weeks ago. She served her time for a crime that she was manipulated into, that she admits was based on a wrong decision, and she has been a model prisoner. A first time (and only time I am sure) offender she is the lowest risk category. She has no direct victim, it wasn't a violent crime and she has nothing added to her standard licence. Those who have read my blogs will know that she left open prison in June as a textbook rehabilitated prisoner, with a full time job, a car, a partner and a new family. But, 15 weeks later, the Probation Service has managed to take away both her job and her car, and are preventing her continuing her relationship with her new partner. She is also isolated from her only family, who live in London. She is still unemployed and living in homeless accommodation in Scotland, nearly 600 miles from the place and people she considers to be home.

Nobody quite knows why Kent, Surrey and Sussex CRC are being so awkward and prohibitive. They still refuse to respond in writing, to communicate effectively with Scottish probation, PAS. the Scottish lady herself or her legal representatives. The local CRC office refuses to make any decisions about transferring her case to England or even about visiting temporarily while having this necessary surgery. They insist such an "unheard of" request to live with another ex-offender has to be considered by a senior officer from the National Probation Service. But there are many, many examples of two ex-offenders on licence living together and marrying without any of this kind of prohibitive and vindictive behaviour from their probation officers. Different agencies working with ex-offenders and also other Probation departments have confirmed this. Nobody can get to the bottom of the KSS CRC decision making. There does not seem to be a ruling or prison law that forbids this. There is nothing in either person's background or behaviour that would forbid this.

Whether or not a higher officer has to make the decision though is not the crux of this matter. The extremely urgent and life threatening issue is that the request for transfer was originally made over three months ago, the paperwork was sent (more than once), the hospital dates were known about, and yet......... still no decision or communication is forthcoming. Imagine how scared you would be about undergoing surgery, and how frightening to still not have confirmation that you can actually attend just three days before!

On Friday the Scottish lady visited her GP. She has been told that the stress caused by Probation's appalling behaviour towards her has massively increased her risk of stroke and/or heart attack. She has now been prescribed Diazepam on top of all the other daily medications she has to take to try to keep a serious heart attack at bay. The GP, who works four days a week in the prison service, has written a supporting letter. In it he states:

"I believe if she went onto a myocardial infarction/heart attack whilst placed on yet another waiting list, the Probation Office could be found medically and legally liable"

This letter has been e-mailed to Scottish Probation, PAS, the solicitor, KSS CRC and the senior officer who is refusing to deal with the situation. Ironically an out-of-office reply came back from that same senior officer, saying she was out of office until 23rd (the date of the operation.......). But for those of you who are technically minded bear this in mind.......

The out of office reply was sent, not as an automated reply, not with alternative contact details, but with a short sentence in it, FIVE HOURS after the email was received!! Slightly suspicious don't you think??

It seems that the Criminal Justice System can behave in any way they please, break any rules they like, make up rules as they go along. But ultimately, this is a human being. They are risking the death of a 53 year old lady, a living breathing human, who has a daughter, a partner, a sister, a niece and nephew, a whole new family.......

I hope they sleep well at night, I know the Scottish lady doesn't.....

Guest Blog 13

A vision of a Participatory Probation co-operative or an alternative to TR

I will start with revolution and end with probation. In its simplest form arguments on the left of politics have seen two principle classes driving history forward; an “Owning Class” that exploits the “Working Class”. Recently Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel have argued that a key third class exists with an equally pivotal role in making history. They named this class the "Coordinating Class". 

In reality the Coordinator Class are the managers. They are a tier of people who manage their work and the work of others: CEOs, bankers, big lawyers, and politicians at the top level, but managers in the public sector and in the new Third Sector are part of the Coordinator Class. They are the go-betweens for the capitalists and the workers and they have an overwhelming monopoly over empowering work. What they say goes, or you are out on your ear. They are managers of themselves and others. They develop their own economic interests; they compete with workers and one another to continue to hold onto a disproportionate share of empowering/interesting work. Okay that’s the end of the theory bit, lets move on to the Revolution.

In the case of the Russian Revolution, the original Soviets were set up to be open and democratic, to be run by the workers for the workers; full participation of all was to be the basis of the first Soviets. However, as time went on the managers/coordinators started to make the majority of the major/empowering decisions and as always, they made more and more decisions in their own interests and ultimately the Revolution was corrupted. The coordinators became a power elite and the democratic essence of the first Soviets was crushed; in the end this class of managers led to the purges and the death of millions.

The above is an example of the old adage that power corrupts all who hold it and it is part of the narrative that nothing can be done to stop people from being corrupted and nothing can stop the powerful. Indeed in the Probation Service we have our own examples of corruption and power and we have our very own class of coordinators. I’m sure that former NAPO leaders came into post with the best of intentions, but over time they were corrupted by power and started to serve their own interests, the rest is our history.

So if power corrupts is it possible to create a democratic participatory Probation Cooperative?

If a few people hold the decision making powers in any organisation, how can we stop the bastards from turning into a power elite or from serving the existing elite? Probation management is a good example of this phenomenon. Without question we have witnessed probation management doing the bidding of those in the MoJ and NOMS who are driven by a mix of what is know as managerialism and neoliberalism, ideologies that argue that managers and the markets know best. The mantra trotted out on every occasion is that the state is bad and the market is king and if it is said often enough it is accepted. The mantra is taken to heart by the greasy pole climbers when all the evidence from the privatised sections of the state (Transport, Utilities, Banks, education, NHS, the Post Office and all forms of Community Care) is that it is an unmitigated disaster, but the fools press on.

The first thing we need to do in order to create our Probation Cooperative is to dispose of the managers because we know they have been or soon will be corrupted. So who will do the managing you may ask and the answer is we will. We know we can’t ask Jim, Joanna, Netnipper and their mates to make the decisions because in the end they too will turn into lying ruthless bastards. No, Albert and Hahnel argue that Power must be rotated continually. This is the only way to stop the corrupting process. 

Many will say this is idealist clap-trap, you need managers to free others from the bureaucracy, or they may say that many people will not make good managers. To this I say that one hundred years ago all doctors were male; today over fifty per cent and increasing are female. In the Probation Service and in society at large, we share very similar abilities and given the chance most of us could do most jobs. Indeed eighty per cent of the working class would make good or excellent brain surgeons. They don’t because they don't get the chance, not because they do not have the ability and as Probation staff we know this.

The rotation of power can be achieved by limiting the time any person can be  part of the decision making body of the cooperative or better, by all people making the decisions together. Fridays could be set out as a time for debate and voting or the last three days in the month could or the last three weeks in the year, there are endless combinations. The  fully participating membership would decide; real democracy, because this is what we are talking about. It isn’t easy, we will have to work at it, but it's got to be better than what we have now.

Democracy at work means we all have a voice in how and what we do in the workplace. Democracy at work means the end of hierarchical structures, to be replaced by horizontal that are by dint democratic structures and processes. However, to be truly democratic, the probation cooperative would need to be fully participatory. What I mean by this is that each person would need to as involved in the organisation as much as he/she can possibly be. Hierarchy would be replaced by community and fear of the boss by support for our fellow workers. The Probation Service would be a perfect pilot for such an organisation, ether as a cooperative or within the Public Sector. We know that cognitively  probation staff are similar and we know from the last fifteen years that we would be able to rotate most tasks with ease. PSOs become POs and clerical staff become PSOs and Probation Officers and all of us can undertake management tasks with little effort. By sharing and rotating decision making, we keep hierarchy and corruption at bay.

Albert and Hahnel go on to talk about “Shared Job Complexes”. What they mean by this is that each persons job should be a mix of good and not so good tasks and we do this all the time in Probation. Each of us would have turns: “acting up” and cleaning the bog, writing reports, court duty, home visits and so on. There would be no hierarchical division of labour, no SPOs clerical workers or Probation Officers, importantly we would decide how its done in the workplace. Nothing would be foisted on us by the brutes at NOMS or the MoJ, this is why I think this type of working lends itself better to a cooperative organisation rather than the Public Sector. However, it could work in the Public Sector if they gave us enough freedom, but that ain't going to happen anytime soon.

We will all have to do the horrible parts of the job too, telling people that they need to improve certain skills or put a little more effort into the job. This would be achieved in solidarity and with genuine support not via fear or greasy pole climbing. Because we all share the same tasks, we will be much better placed than current management to see who is not pulling their weight or when someone needs more support.

Remuneration in a Probation Cooperative could be set this way. Workers who work longer or harder or at more onerous conditions (cleaning the toilet, working with difficult clients) would earn proportionally more for doing so. And others who wanted to work part time or do less onerous tasks would be paid less. Again we the members would decide exactly how.

There are millions of people currently employed in varying forms of cooperatives: over eighty thousand work in Mondragon in Spain, thousands work in cooperative movement in the UK and thousands are employed in radical cooperatives in South America. Perhaps it's an idea whose time has come. 

On a personal note and I need to be a little coy here lest I blow my cover, in my place of work we have had little management input for six years and three of us have had a free hand in designing the work we do and we have had much success. So much so that a report has been written on our model of work and it was suggested that others in the area should adopt it. However, when Grayling entered the fray, that was the end of that. 

The three people involved had different ideas of how to work, but because no one was senior to the other, the way we worked was borne out consensus. There was no power imbalance, we all had an equal say in decision making; the way we worked developed organically because we had no managers dictating the way it must be done in order to feather their own nests or doing the bidding of their ideologically driven “betters”. The work we did developed from the needs of the people we worked with and from the bottom up. Indeed, the men were interviewed when the report was written on our “model” and they were fully supportive of our methods. It was “Effective Practice” in action.

Finally, I think working in this horizontal participatory way has implications for unions. Horizontalism and full participation necessitates that the hierarchical structures of unions are reduced. People fully involved in their work will simply be more aware and will want to have a greater say in the political direction of their union. I think people would want to be more involved in union activities and we would vote for more time to discuss and vote on issues. Again this could be done on every Friday afternoon each week and if there was some sort of higher decision making body needed we would not send Jim, or Netnipper every time because we know how corrupt they can be. No, we would mix it up to stop power coalescing in a stinking, putrid elite.

We need to break out of the dominant narrative of TINA (there is no alternative). There are millions of ways to organise work, most of them better than the nightmare we currently toil under - TR my arse.

Papa

Where Did It All Go Wrong?

It's a sobering thought to reflect that it all started to go wrong for probation just as I arrived on the scene as a fresh-faced 'unconfirmed' officer. I qualified with a degree and CQSW in 1985, a year after the government published their Statement of National Objectives and Priorities (SNOP) for the Service. It took the Thatcher government a long time to get around to us, but looking back on it now and with the benefit of hindsight, it signalled the beginning of our demise. Haven't we done well to last this long?

Sadly SNOP represented a brand new way of doing government and it's continued ever since. As this Hansard report of proceedings in the House of Lords demonstrates, a number of wise Peers could see trouble ahead for us and in effect began the campaign to try and preserve the integrity of the Probation Service that continues to this day. Opening proceedings was Lord Wells-Pestell, a former probation officer, and reading the transcript some 30 years later, it contains some ominously familiar themes:- 

"I am concerned—and I want to say this as nicely as I can: I do not want to be considered offensive in any way—about the competence of those at the Home Office who are responsible for the statement of objectives and priorities, who probably have had no practical experience at all of being a probation officer. 
I know that the noble Lord the Minister is going to tell me that they had the experience of probation inspectors. They had that experience, but it is a very different thing, when you come to prepare and write a memorandum, to do it after discussion with some people who have worked in the field if you yourself have had no practical experience."

The debate is well worth reading in full as it canters over all the main issues of the time ranging from the lack of a plan, training, report writing, salaries, management and much more. There is even a contribution from the great Lord Longford before the Under Secretary of State rises and amongst other things introduces this very familiar sounding notion:-  

"In future we shall be expecting the probation service to concentrate on making the most effective use of the resources which it has already. It must expect to meet increased demand for its services by more efficient and economical use of its existing manpower and facilities. In addition, a basis was needed for the application to the probation service of the Government's financial management initiative. The intention is to ensure that the 80 per cent. grant we pay on the probation service is related to clear objectives and is securing value for money. There can be no objection to getting more for the same amount of cash."


So what did SNOP bring to the probation party? Why joy of joys, bureaucratisation  and managerialism. Just for a moment allow yourself to daydream as to what your world would be like without these two expensive innovations. I'm fortunate in that I can remember. Happily it all took a long time to reach my particular probation neck-of-the-woods as my office was both geographically and managerially distant from from Head Office. In fact the joke was that we belonged to a neighbouring Service. 

We just carried on democratically deciding our own local policy for years, with the SPO being an equal participant in lively team discussions. In those days we had almost complete discretion and just followed our nose. This is from recent correspondence and utterly typical in my experience:-

"he was a Programme manager and when we had a treatment manager appointed to the team - she commented that he often did not stick to the rule book - I replied that he did not know there was a rule book!!! He just did what he thought was right - a really old style senior rather than a manager."

As usual the internet has thrown up an interesting essay on the subject by author unknown, but I hope they will forgive my quoting from it:- 

According to McWilliams (1992) the arrival of management into the NPS is a recent concept within the organisations development. Up until then he believed that the service had operated under a ‘professional-administrative model,’ yet the recommendations of the Butterworth report (1972) included the need for planning and control – and thus the era of management began. This shift largely occurred through Martinson’s proclamation that Nothing Works (1974). However it is important at this stage to differentiate between the concepts of management and managerialism. The former, in the traditional sense, refers to the ‘balancing and direction of resources to achieve certain intents.’ Managerialism on the other hand refers to the ‘implementation of a variety of techniques…..within a culture of cost efficiency and service effectiveness.’ (James & Raine 1998). It is therefore the concept of managerialism which, under the guise that public services including the NPS, should be run like a business (Clarke 1994) became the transformational force for reform.

So, the inexorable march of management, ably assisted by that essential tool for any command and control structure, the bloody computer, has got us to where we are now. Just a few months away from privatisation and ultimate demise.

Sign the No10 petition here. 

DIY Probation

The announcement that the government is keen to encourage public sector workers to band together, form John Lewis style co-operatives and bid to manage their organisation at first sounds barmy, but how many of us have said in the pub that we could indeed run things better? I know I have. 

However I find the John Lewis analogy a little unfortunate given its obvious middle class exclusive nature, its unhappy connections with the parliamentary expenses scandal (remember all claims were measured against the so-called John Lewis list) and its sheer arrogance in the way it demands certain planning criteria to be met before deigning to plant any branch in a city. I digress, but anyone familiar with the new store in Liverpool couldn't get a better illustration of the John Lewis attitude to society. The rear end of the store backs onto the bus station, but there are no doors, whilst overhead a bridge delivers the middle classes direct from their 4x4's safely parked in the multi-storey. I hear the same is planned for Leeds, only with the rear to the market and bridge over the Headrow linking a new car park. 

Having got that off my chest, the John Lewis ownership model, with no employees but 'partners' instead is an interesting one. Is it so fanciful in this new climate of voluntarism, Big Society, reduction in bureaucracy and encouragement of innovation to think that at least one group of probation managers might have a go at something different? Ideologically I am as much attracted to the notions of mutuality, co-ownership and co-operation as I am to public ownership. It's private companies entering the field of the Criminal Justice System that I have problems with. But then I have problems with bloated Head Offices, too many managers and tiers of management with command and control agenda's.

I think it behoves some part of our profession to prove that it need not be like this. That another model and method of operation is possible with a root and branch examination of all practices. This could be the opportunity to prove that a return to small community-based provision is better and cheaper. That a massive Head Office bureaucracy is unnecessary. That responsibility and discretion could be returned to practitioners. That the focus could return to front line activity in partnership with other agencies, but probation with it's ethical and professional base in control.

Let me give just one concrete example of how I would change things. For many years I was a volunteer with the Samaritans and found that their ethos and method of operation dovetailed neatly with my professional work as a probation officer. Like all organisations it had a management structure and bureaucracy, but the impressive thing was that everyone, from the Chairman, National Officers, Directors downwards all had to do the same amount of duty and face to face contact with the public. This meant that not only was there not an air of hierarchy but also that management never got distanced from the core business of the organisation. I would insist on something similar with all probation managers having to write some PSR's, fill in the damned OASys and actually see clients. I think that would lead to a very different culture with less command and control directives from a distanced management. Come on then - who's up for this?