The Reality

I'm guessing there's been a certain air of smugness around MoJ HQ since last Thursday. Ok there was the expected media storm regarding u-turns and the tacit acceptance that TR had been a failure, but the ire was directed at Grayling (no love lost there) and the media had free reign in promulgating a disingenuous re-nationalisation message. In short the MoJ have taken a short-lived media 'hit', fostered a misleading message (well done guys) and the political masters can still keep delivering a huge chunk of privatisation, oh screened of course with a bit of a charity/third sector fig leaf.   

Whilst lauded as a 'victory' in certain quarters, rather wiser counsel have always recognised that this was only ever going to be a first step towards the ambitious aim of full reintegration under public control and independence from HM Prison Service. Without doubt it can be regarded as a pragmatic first step, not requiring legislation, but Tories don't change their spots easily and there's still the promise of lots of gravy to go round for their privateer chums. This from yesterday seems to summarise the position:-   

Eleven HMPPS-controlled NPS supremos handing out £3.6bn of public money to, predominantly, privateers who will be providing a range of offender management services. Is this very different from HMPPS handing out £bns of public money to, predominantly, privateers who have been providing a range of unprofessional, poor-quality, unsafe offender management services? Napo, Unison, GMB - either (1) you're so unbelievably stupid that you've been taken to the cleaners once again or (2) you're complicit with this government's agenda.

Clearly the real battle for the heart and soul of probation will have to wait for another day and almost certainly a General Election and the hope of a Labour Administration committed to putting humpty dumpty back together again. As we know, Lord Ramsbotham has been beavering away with his inquiry for the Labour Party, but last weeks news has rather taken the wind out of his sails and I'm not aware how widely his Interim Report has been circulated or indeed if there's been any public launch. The Guardian has certainly seen it though judging by this editorial from last week:-

Ministers ought to take up the approach set out by Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, who has produced an excellent roadmap for the Labour party. The crossbench peer correctly insists that probation should not have been centralised as a societal curative service. Instead it belongs at a local level and ought to be re-established in the communities it serves. His idea is to help offenders find a direction and purpose in their lives in the neighbourhoods they live in. This would bring the probation service into closer contact with other arms of the state such as the NHS. It could be directly responsive to concerns about crime in their communities. The private sector’s role, if any, could be then confined to limited tasks commissioned by the new probation authorities.     

So, whilst we've all been distracted with fighting, and winning the battle of TR and TR2, the somewhat-tarnished MoJ Contracts Team have been quietly working-up plan B and plans for commissioning brand new contracts for UPW and Programmes. It's all ready to roll with 'stakeholder' events arranged for later this month. The details will undoubtedly require close scrutiny given the department's track record with other contracts.

--oo00oo--

At this point it's probably worth trying to recap where things are and in this regard I notice that Russell Webster published just such a succinct roundup yesterday:- 

What are the MoJ’s plans for probation?

When the Justice Secretary announced the format of the new probation system last Thursday (16 May 2019), the MoJ also published its response to the consultation it issued back in last July.

The consultation process has been rather strange. The consultation document, entitled “Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence”, maintained that the government intended to keep the same format of Transforming Rehabilitation with the public sector National Probation Service servicing the courts and managing high risk offenders with the private Community Rehabilitation Companies managing low and medium risk offenders. The main change was the planned reduction in the number of CRCs from 21 to 11, aligned with new NPS divisions.

In the end, Ministers bowed to pressure from the sector (and a succession of critical reports by the Probation Inspectorate, National Audit Office and others) and decided to return all offender management to the NPS.

The announcement did not give much further detail other than:

• The 11 new CRCs will now be known as “innovation partners” and will be directly responsible for providing unpaid work and accredited programmes.
• The NPS will be required to buy all interventions from the market including “resettlment and rehabilitative services”
• Private and voluntary sector organisations will need to register on a dynamic purchasing framework (similar to that used for the recent re-procurement of prison education) in order to provide services to offenders.
• The total annual budget for unpaid work, accredited programmes and these rehabilitative and resettlement services will be up to £280 million per year.

However, it is clear that there remain many details to be worked out. No new operating model was published and the MoJ has provided only a little additional information about what happens next:

• A period of market and stakeholder engagement.
• A commercial competition later this year for providers to bid to provide rehabilitative services.
• Three launch events to discuss the reforms in more depth at the end of May.

I have read the consultation response to find whether there are any more clues to the MoJ’s plans.

The consultation

There were 476 responses to the consultation, 44% of them from probation professionals, 17% from voluntary sector organisations and 8% from judges and magistrates. Here is how the MoJ has addressed some of respondents’ concerns.

A clearer role for the voluntary sector

The MoJ says that “interventions should be commissioned and delivered locally where possible” and that it wants to see a clearer role for a “wide range of voluntary sector providers”. The MoJ intends to achieve this via a dynamic framework which will operate as an open panel of suppliers, who can be admitted to the panel at any point during its lifetime subject to a qualification process (based on experience and capabilities). Eligible panel members will be invited to participate in mini-competitions for the services required which will be run by the regional directors of the eleven areas (see map below) on either a regional or local level.

Resettlement

Under the current system, CRCs are responsible for preparing all prisoners for release. However, this is set to change:

Consistent with our broader approach to offender management we intend that in future the responsibilities for assessing offenders’ needs; identifying the services required; and coordinating delivery of these services will in future be provided through the NPS; with a much clearer role for private and voluntary sector providers in delivering those interventions and services.

Whether regional directors will commission in-prison resettlement services on a prison-by-prison basis or home area basis is unclear, nor how resettlement will fit with the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) scheme currently rolled out within the prison service. As far as I can see, there is no indication as to whether the MoJ plans to change (or abolish) the post sentence supervision arrangements which brought another 40,000 short term prisoners under the supervision of the probation service and has contributed to a big increase in the numbers recalled to prison.

Cross-sector commissioning

The MoJ says it intends to use the new regional structures to “test innovative forms of commissioning to focus on cross-cutting social outcomes that are key to reducing reoffending” — presumably offender accommodation in particular. It intends to ringfence funding within the overall probation budget with the aim of attracting match funding from other government departments or commissioning bodies including social finance providers and Social Impact Bonds. 

Rebuilding the probation profession

The consultation responses quotes from Chief Probation Inspector Dame Glenys Stacey who has emphasised the damage to the professional identity of probation staff from the way that TR was implemented, particularly for those working in CRCs. She has advocated an evidence-based probation service delivered by professional staff who are constantly developing their skills.

The MoJ says it intends to further this objective by bringing forward “legislation to implement a statutory professional regulatory framework across the probation system with continual professional development standards and a practise and ethical framework for designated roles. By implementing this framework, we aim to ensure that staff who are suitably qualified are supported in gaining the tools and opportunities for a long and effective career.”

You can keep up with the market engagement events and next steps in the probation redesign process on the MoJ probation consultation website.

Russell Webster

The Leaving

As anyone in the public sector knows full well, the end of March, beginning of April can be a strange, even surreal period. For years colleagues in HM Inland Revenue have traditionally enjoyed a New Year party as the old tax year draws to a close and ushers in a bright new one. In other parts of the public sector, probation included, in stark contrast to the exhortations all year to save money, there is typically an urgent phone call or e-mail from Head Office asking if we need any desks or filing cabinets? In fact anything, as long as it can be spent now and avoid the tragedy of losing unspent money left in capital budgets. In days gone it meant speedy visits to Argos or Dixons for a new pool table for the day centre or video equipment for groupwork. Nowadays it's more likely to be for a new fridge to keep the packed lunch in.

But it's also a period when time-served colleagues decide it's time to pack it in or cave in to the thought that just maybe this might be the last year Early Retirement is on offer. I always find it sad when the inevitable notice comes round announcing the imminent departure of yet another colleague who seems to have been part of the fabric forever and whose wise counsel you know you are going to miss. Ever since I set out on this journey over 25 years ago, I have marvelled at the wit, wisdom and skill of many colleagues and in particular how they crafted the English language on a daily basis in order to convey ideas, passion and reason. It really is a skill that is sadly disappearing as anyone reading what passes for a PSR today will testify to.

Over the years it has been a bit of a probation tradition not to go quietly however, and one or two of us have hung on to particularly noteworthy 'final thoughts' as the author leaves the building. The following came into my possession several years ago via a colleague in another area, but is so good in my view that I feel it's worth disseminating a little further. As well-loved colleagues depart into well-earned retirement, I find myself dwelling on the sentiments so ably expressed and that are possibly even more valid today. Needless to say, I share them entirely. Should the person recognise their handiwork, I hope they forgive the impertinence, but my motive is one of simple admiration. 

"For most of the.....................I have been employed by.......................,I have enjoyed the pleasure and the privilege of working with predominantly dedicated, robustly compassionate and often highly creative colleagues. There are many aspects of what used to be the best job in the world which I will miss. However, there are other aspects which I will be glad to leave behind as the role and the organisation become increasingly procedural, defensive and, above all, tedious. 

I will not, for example, miss OASys, the cumbersome, time-consuming hindrance to coherent assessment as opposed to the aid which it purports to be.  I will not miss case management, an initiative so ill-defined and fragmented that most would not even recognise those whose risks we are supposedly managing if we fell over them in the street. I will not miss accredited programmes and the evermore ludicrous pretence that they are universally, rather than occasionally, effective. I will not miss sterile, open-plan offices in which we rarely look up from our computer monitors to talk to each other and in which we often seem to prefer the virtual reality of data input to client contact.  I will not miss the happy-clappy, hierarchical culture which pretends that all is well when clearly it is not and which sometimes patronises, sometimes vilifies, always disqualifies the ideas of all but those who have taken the corporate management shilling. I will not miss the madness and immorality of an organisation which promotes a disproportionate number of its staff to middle management positions only to supplement their already increased salaries with the proceeds of freelance 'flat-rate' PSR's, which mysteriously they have no time to prepare during the day-job but which, unsurprisingly, there are no longer sufficient main grade officers to complete. Least of all will I miss the bullying hypocrisy of certain managers who routinely label disagreement as resistance to change when their own idea of adventure and adaptability often amounts to no more than sitting at a different table for lunch in the head office canteen.

One facet of the Service which I will most definitely miss is the challenge of writing persuasive court reports within specific constraints and to tight deadlines. I will also miss the many gifted storytellers whose practice of this narrative art is about to be further undermined by the roll-out of a 'painting by numbers', short-form PSR. I will miss the collective spirit, generosity and gallows humour of a range of colleagues with whom, at various times over the years I have shared team meetings, awaydays, groupwork (including residentials), family therapy sessions, court welfare disputes, practice teaching and even, for a short time, Divisional Management Meetings. I will miss the many students, trainees and other fellow-learners in whose development I have had the good fortune to be involved, albeit that some of them will not necessarily miss me. I will miss, in particular, the unfailing kindness and quiet efficiency of clerical and administrative staff, whose insufficiently recognised contribution to the work of the Service is reflected in their scandalously low pay. Last, but by no means least, I will miss the clients who despite their many imperfections and sometimes horrific acts remain, lest we forget, the means by which we all pay our mortgages and put food on the table, as well as a reminder that "...there but for fortune go you and I."    

Sex Offenders

To my surprise, some of my most rewarding work has been with sex offenders. They often pose the greatest challenges because as a group they are more likely to be in denial and prone to minimisation in terms of their behaviour. This in turn means they remain a high risk of re-offending and pose a serious threat due to the nature of their offences, which are invariably disturbing and serious. Being responsible for a generic caseload both in and out of prison, I have had my fair share of cases in this category, but for many years felt that the prognosis would always be bleak in terms of trying to make any progress in reducing the risks they posed. I always felt it most unlikely that clients displaying seriously deviant sexual behaviour were going to be amenable to change.

But then some years ago I was offered the chance of joining two other colleagues in running a self-styled Sex Offender Project based on group and individual work. Although we were only allowed about a day a week each, we still managed to set up a 'core' group, a 'maintenance' group and 'adapted' group for the learning disabled, in addition to individual work with very high risk clients. The latter had typically been released from long prison sentences on Parole Licence, specifically in order to take part in the project and resided at probation hostels. Due to the level of risk they posed they had to be escorted for individual sessions. The maintenance group was designed both for those who completed the core group programme and for voluntary attenders when their order had finished. (Yes, just imagine that concept nowadays!) We accepted referrals at all stages, right from PSR and even undertook to write the report for the referring PO. Management just allowed us to get on with it, but paid for a consultant to give advice and support every few months.

The whole project had been running successfully for a number of years, designed in-house by my experienced colleagues, with each aspect tailored to an individuals needs, as was felt appropriate. Imagine that, no manual, no bureaucracy, no monitoring. They were halcyon days indeed and we did amazing work with some of the most scary and damaged people I've ever met. I will always feel priviledged to have had the opportunity of proving beyond doubt that even the most dangerous of offenders can and did respond to some skilfull, patient, understanding counselling. In some cases it took a great deal of time, but there were no time limits, no prescriptive programme and no video or tape recording.

I mention all this because what I am describing is now history and has been replaced with something very different, the authorised and highly prescriptive Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). This now operates in all probation areas and is available in certain prisons. Run strictly according to a manual, sessions are video-recorded to ensure compliance with the programme and tutors performance is monitored afterwards by so called 'Treatment Managers'. All dreadful nomenclature in my view. Admission to the programme is by no means automatic and for example excludes those in denial or those with learning disabilities.

Now, as I declined to put myself forward for this new initiative, it would not be fair to say too much, beyond perhaps the not-surprising observation that I remain sceptical that the 'one size fits all' approach is right. Clearly it would not have benefited the vast majority of our clientele. So, in a sense, I've come full circle in feeling that once more there is a group of sex offenders for whom the prognosis remains very poor indeed. Progress?