A couple of things have got me particularly grumpy and I thought I'd share them with you. It begins with a story, the relatively straight forward matter of filling the post of receptionist at a busy probation office. The practice has been to obtain temporary cover from a local recruitment agency. Some stay a day, others a few weeks, but every now and then one stays months and is obviously well-suited to the role.
In such a key front-line job, good organisational ability is essential, alongside excellent skills in people management. In fact the opposite of what many of us find present with doctors receptionist's where staff often seem to have perfected the art of annoying people. Anyway, the practice is to encourage the obviously good candidate to apply for the substantive post, and invariably to my astonishment, they don't get it. How on earth can this be?
Well I suspect the clue lies in the ultra politically-correct way in which interviews have to be conducted by public bodies nowadays. Gone are the days when a panel can select by gut feeling on the basis of a free-flowing interview. A minder from HR is always present and only strictly proscribed questions can be put, with little or no opportunity for follow-up clarification. Not surprisingly the end result is often that an unsuitable person is appointed.
To be honest I think this is how a number of unsuitable PO's and PSO's have come into the job in recent years. Bad enough you might think, but how is it that a large public body such as the BBC is able to appoint someone on a staggering salary of £295,000, without going to the expensive trouble of even advertising the post? Former employee and later Minister of Culture James Purnell has recently been so-appointed, presumably just on the basis of the old boy's network?
One final grumpy outrage before I sign off today. How can it be that the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange is a charity? Their sole purpose is to come up with right-wing wheezes such as Payment by Results as a way of influencing government policy and privatising public services. The £2 million they receive from unnamed donors might well be from the likes of G4S, who of course will likely benefit from privatisation contracts. It all has a very unpleasant smell about it, particularly as the Charity Commission is withholding charitable status from a church group in the West Country saying that churches are "not necessarily for public good."
Sign the No10 petition here.
Saturday, 16 February 2013
Friday, 15 February 2013
A Stab in the Dark Anyone?
With just seven days left to get responses in to the Ministry of Justice in relation to their plans for privatising the Probation Service, a lot of attention is turning to the method by which contractors will be paid. It's called Payment by Results and the government are absolutely beside themselves at the prospect it brings of 'reforming' public services.
In order to avoid any doubt 'reform' is a code term, a bit like 'handy size' when your favourite choc bar shrinks in size but costs the same, or 'new fares' when the bus company only puts the prices up. There are lots of examples of this mealy-mouthed public relations con-trick sort of language and for 'reform' read more for less. It's supposed to mean 'efficiencies' of course, but even kids aren't impressed by that kind of argument if pocket money stays static or reduces.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the battle for the future of the Probation Service will hinge upon PbR and whether it has any chance of working. Now, as it happens, in our work with offenders we know that past behaviour is often an important indicator for future behaviour. Actually this is as good a rule of thumb for life generally. If you burnt your hand on a hot oven last time, the same will happen if you touch it next time.
Extending the analagy, PbR can hardly be said to have been a roaring success in the DWP's Work Programme. In fact according to this Guardian article, "it's a dangerous idiocy that makes staff tell lies." Written by Toby Lowe, visiting fellow at Newcastle University business school, it's utterly damning of PbR as experienced so far in public service:-
In order to avoid any doubt 'reform' is a code term, a bit like 'handy size' when your favourite choc bar shrinks in size but costs the same, or 'new fares' when the bus company only puts the prices up. There are lots of examples of this mealy-mouthed public relations con-trick sort of language and for 'reform' read more for less. It's supposed to mean 'efficiencies' of course, but even kids aren't impressed by that kind of argument if pocket money stays static or reduces.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the battle for the future of the Probation Service will hinge upon PbR and whether it has any chance of working. Now, as it happens, in our work with offenders we know that past behaviour is often an important indicator for future behaviour. Actually this is as good a rule of thumb for life generally. If you burnt your hand on a hot oven last time, the same will happen if you touch it next time.
Extending the analagy, PbR can hardly be said to have been a roaring success in the DWP's Work Programme. In fact according to this Guardian article, "it's a dangerous idiocy that makes staff tell lies." Written by Toby Lowe, visiting fellow at Newcastle University business school, it's utterly damning of PbR as experienced so far in public service:-
"Payment by results is a simple idea: people and organisations should only get paid for what they deliver. Who could argue with that? If your job is to get people back to work, then find them a job dammit.
Plenty of people working in local government and public services are already starting to realise this is nonsense, and a pernicious, damaging nonsense at that. The evidence is very clear: if you pay (or otherwise manage performance) based on a set of pre-defined results, it creates poorer services for those most in need. It is the vulnerable, the marginalised, the disadvantaged who suffer most from payment by results.
Here's why: payment by results does not reward organisations for supporting people to achieve what they need; it rewards organisations for producing data about targets; it rewards organisations for the fictions their staff are able to invent about what they have achieved; it pays people for porkies.
We know that common things happen when people use payment by results, and other outcomes-based performance management systems. There have been numerous studies that show that such systems distort organisational priorities and make organisations focus on doing the wrong things – and they make people lie.
This lying takes all sorts of different forms. Some of them are subtle forms of deception: teachers who teach to the test or who only enter pupils for exams they know they are going to pass; employment support that helps only those likely to get a job and ignores those most in need; or hospitals that reclassify trolleys as beds, and keep people waiting in ambulances on the hospital doorstep until they know they can be seen within a target time. In the literature, this is known as gaming the system."
There is absolutely no reason to think things will be any different in a privatised Probation Service where contractors will be paid by PbR. In fact it's fascinating to read what the proponents of the wonder solution are saying. Here we have the fourth post in a series on the Russell Webster website by consultants Aylesbury Partnerships. Entitled 'Getting the right information system for payment by results' these selective quotes give a flavour of the shenanigan's involved:-
When your organisation’s revenue is linked to outcomes that are achieved months or even years after delivering its service, understanding the factors that lead to payable outcomes is more important than ever. The more innovative your intervention is, the more uncertain the link between the activities you perform today and the outcomes you achieve.
Monitoring the intermediate steps that lead to your outcomes will improve your estimate of the eventual outcomes. Initially these estimates may be a stab in the dark, but as the first outcomes of your contract are achieved, the data you have collected will improve your forecasts substantially.
We can get excited about using Monte Carlo analysis to understand contract risk on an ongoing basis but often it is the simplest measures, properly illustrated that have the greatest impact. If the information is stored and accessible within a well-designed system, customised reports can be provided to each stakeholder in a visually appealing format.
The most compelling evidence when bidding for contracts or seeking investment shows that your organisation has ample experience in delivering the services in question – the track record. Adding detail and interesting statistics to the track record you have built up will increase the impact of that information, convey the impression that you really understand the intervention and that you can pinpoint what has worked and what has not.
So there we have it. It could all be "a stab in the dark" using a "Monte Carlo Analysis" and based on "detail and interesting statistics (that) convey the impression that you really understand the intervention and that you can pinpoint what has worked and what has not."
I will leave the last word to Toby Lowe concerning an up-coming conference on PbR:-
I will be taking part in a public conversation with others who are asking questions about payment by results, and seeking alternatives to outcomes-based performance management at a conference in Manchester on Wednesday 6 March. If you've been forced into gaming the system or just plain telling porkies in order to meet daft results targets, I'd love to hear your stories. If you get it off your chest you help contribute to changing the system. Let's make this change; it's important.
Sign the No 10 petition here.
Thursday, 14 February 2013
Squaring the Circle
Payment by Results is the new wonder solution for funding public services and lies at the absolute heart of the government's agenda for privatising the Probation Service. The totally-unproven methodology is a gift to politicians of all hues because it promises the Holy Grail of providing more for less and it's simple to understand. A contractor only gets paid if they deliver. Should be a doddle to sort out.
When first introduced into the criminal justice arena at HMP Peterborough by the last Labour administration but with cross-party support, I was enthusiastic. The scheme was accessing new money by novel means and targeting short-term prisoners who were not subject to any statutory support. But things have moved on. Even before there has been any definitive evidence that the scheme has been successful, further pilot projects have been cancelled by the government and the decision taken instead to roll out PbR as the basis for privatising 70% of core probation work.
One of the key supporters of PbR is Policy Exchange, a think tank of the right and according to Wikipedia:-
"The New Statesman named it as David Cameron's "favourite think tank", a view shared by the Political Editor of the Evening Standard Joe Murphy, who referred to it as "the intellectual boot camp of the Tory modernisers."
So we know where they're coming from and for that reason alone their recent report 'Expanding payment by results - Strategic choices and recommendations' should be treated with a degree of scepticism. The synopsis states:-
It recommends:
When first introduced into the criminal justice arena at HMP Peterborough by the last Labour administration but with cross-party support, I was enthusiastic. The scheme was accessing new money by novel means and targeting short-term prisoners who were not subject to any statutory support. But things have moved on. Even before there has been any definitive evidence that the scheme has been successful, further pilot projects have been cancelled by the government and the decision taken instead to roll out PbR as the basis for privatising 70% of core probation work.
One of the key supporters of PbR is Policy Exchange, a think tank of the right and according to Wikipedia:-
"The New Statesman named it as David Cameron's "favourite think tank", a view shared by the Political Editor of the Evening Standard Joe Murphy, who referred to it as "the intellectual boot camp of the Tory modernisers."
So we know where they're coming from and for that reason alone their recent report 'Expanding payment by results - Strategic choices and recommendations' should be treated with a degree of scepticism. The synopsis states:-
Prison bosses should be paid bonuses for meeting reoffending targets if the government's planned 'rehabilitation revolution' is to be a success.
Expanding Payment-by-Results argues that Justice Secretary Chris Grayling's plans to privatise the probation service, underpinned by a ‘payment-by-results’ mechanism, will only work if the prisons system is wrapped into the reforms and prison governors are directly incentivised to cooperate with the new private and voluntary providers who are due to take over probation services.
The report says that Grayling was correct to abandon the Ministry of Justice’s previous payment-by-results pilot programme as the scheme would not have delivered any results until 2017 at the earliest, was reliant on new sources of funding and measured success based on a badly drawn out model which focused almost entirely on working with offenders serving short term prison sentences of under 12 months. Allowing the existing pilot scheme to continue would have jeopardized the entire payment-by-results model.
As the government consults on plans to roll-out payment-by-results across the whole of the criminal justice system, the report makes key recommendations about reforming both the measure used to determine success in reducing reoffending, and the payment mechanism used to reward providers.
It recommends:
- The creation of prison league tables so that the public can judge the relative performance of different jails in cutting reoffending.
- Abandoning the government’s preferred measure of reoffending: The ‘binary measure’ of reoffending, measuring the proportion of offenders in a cohort who reoffend, must be abandoned. It commands almost no sector support and is not the best measure of reoffending in a PbR system for either reducing crime or reducing costs.
- Introducing a higher tariff for the most hardened criminals: Though there are a range of potential replacement options for the binary measure, the report recommends a simple system of differential pricing whereby providers would be paid a higher tariff for rehabilitating those offenders who are hardest to help. This will both cut crime and costs, and command sector support. It will also alleviate fears about ‘parking’ of hard cases and the ‘creaming’ of those who are easier to help.
You will notice that one of the key recommendations of the report concerns the method of payment and the need to move away from a 'binary measure'. In simple terms, if offenders reoffend, the contractor doesn't get paid - the very essence of the payment by results wonder solution. So why does the report say that such a method must be abandoned and that it 'commands almost no sector support?' Well the answer of course is that contractors are concerned that they won't make any money!
Now this poses quite a problem for the civil servants currently beavering away trying to design a scheme for privatising the Probation Service. Politicians are basically simple people who like simple solutions. This is because they understand the public, who also like simple solutions. The 'binary measure' is very simple to understand being 'black and white' and is therefore very popular with politicians.
Unfortunately the big contracting boys, G4S, Serco, Amey etc all hate it. So how can the circle be squared? How can the contractors be reassured that they can make lots of money without fiddling the payment measure? It will be interesting to see. I notice that even Russell Webster has his doubts and he's normally pretty enthusiastic about PbR.
Sign the No 10 petition here.
Sign the No 10 petition here.
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
There is Trouble Ahead
NAPO members discovered last week that their General Secretary had departed. The following short announcement was clearly designed to say as little as possible, but with hindsight was just a tad naive:-
Following the end of a difficult employment tribunal, Jonathan Ledger has decided not to re-apply for his job as Napo’s General Secretary and has now ceased his employment with Napo.
Jonathan has had a long career with Napo and we thank him for all the work he has done for members and wish him well for the future.
The National Officers and Employer’s Sub-Committee have conducted a recruitment and selection exercise and we are very pleased to announce that Ian Lawrence has been appointed as Acting General Secretary. He started in his new role as of Monday 4th February 2013.
Following the end of a difficult employment tribunal, Jonathan Ledger has decided not to re-apply for his job as Napo’s General Secretary and has now ceased his employment with Napo.
Jonathan has had a long career with Napo and we thank him for all the work he has done for members and wish him well for the future.
The National Officers and Employer’s Sub-Committee have conducted a recruitment and selection exercise and we are very pleased to announce that Ian Lawrence has been appointed as Acting General Secretary. He started in his new role as of Monday 4th February 2013.
Members are quite understandably wanting to know more, especially as they and their union are currently engaged in a fight with the government over their jobs and the very existence of the Probation Service.
As we all know, nature abhors a vacuum and in the absence of any further information the internet has provided us with some truly shocking allegations via the Barac website and concerning individuals within the union. Some of it may be true, I don't know, But we do know there has been an Industrial Tribunal and we are told that the written conclusion will be available shortly.
When an organisation is facing trouble like this, there is only one sensible thing to do - announce that there will be a full enquiry to be conducted by someone with impeccable credentials. Only then can the matter be 'put to bed' for a period so that we can all get on with the job in hand of mobilising opposition to the government's ridiculous plans for privatisation of probation.
The profession cannot afford to be distracted at the present time. I have no idea what the mechanics are, and I suspect most union members and indeed the wider public don't really care, just get it sorted and we can have the inevitable and painful post mortem at some future date.
The No 10 petition now stands at 18,451. Sign here.
38 Degree campaign sign here.
PS - Since publishing the above today, I'm aware that NAPO have made the following statement and in view of the content, I have also decided to remove the link to the mentioned website:-
Allegations against Napo and its former employee Mr Jonathan Ledger
We refer to the various tweets, postings and blogs on the BARAC website from Mr Lee Jasper.
There is a reporting restriction order on the Employment Tribunal proceedings that have been mentioned in the various postings. This means that the parties cannot be named. To breach this is to potentially be in contempt of Court. For that reason, legal proceedings have now been issued against Lee Jasper. Our advice to members is to not re-tweet or otherwise promote defamatory statements or other information relating to the Tribunal.
Napo is legally bound by this Order and it is not possible to issue the type of statement that some members have called for. Meanwhile the Napo Officer Group can confirm that these serious allegations were denied strenuously at the time of the Tribunal proceedings and this position remains unchanged. We have therefore decided to remove the link that previously appeared on the Napo forum page as we do not believe that a Napo forum should be associated with this.
Napo takes any issue relating to racism and sexism extremely seriously and we are committed to a zero tolerance approach to oppression and discrimination. In accordance with natural justice, we would ask members to suspend judgment until the findings of the Employment Tribunal are made.
A full statement on the situation relating to the employment status of the former General Secretary was made to the National Executive Committee in closed session on 4th February 2013.
Regards
Tom Rendon and Lisa Robinson
Napo Co-Chairs
The No 10 petition now stands at 18,451. Sign here.
38 Degree campaign sign here.
PS - Since publishing the above today, I'm aware that NAPO have made the following statement and in view of the content, I have also decided to remove the link to the mentioned website:-
Allegations against Napo and its former employee Mr Jonathan Ledger
We refer to the various tweets, postings and blogs on the BARAC website from Mr Lee Jasper.
There is a reporting restriction order on the Employment Tribunal proceedings that have been mentioned in the various postings. This means that the parties cannot be named. To breach this is to potentially be in contempt of Court. For that reason, legal proceedings have now been issued against Lee Jasper. Our advice to members is to not re-tweet or otherwise promote defamatory statements or other information relating to the Tribunal.
Napo is legally bound by this Order and it is not possible to issue the type of statement that some members have called for. Meanwhile the Napo Officer Group can confirm that these serious allegations were denied strenuously at the time of the Tribunal proceedings and this position remains unchanged. We have therefore decided to remove the link that previously appeared on the Napo forum page as we do not believe that a Napo forum should be associated with this.
Napo takes any issue relating to racism and sexism extremely seriously and we are committed to a zero tolerance approach to oppression and discrimination. In accordance with natural justice, we would ask members to suspend judgment until the findings of the Employment Tribunal are made.
A full statement on the situation relating to the employment status of the former General Secretary was made to the National Executive Committee in closed session on 4th February 2013.
Regards
Tom Rendon and Lisa Robinson
Napo Co-Chairs
Tuesday, 12 February 2013
A Fair Trial
Here in Britain we're used to the notion that our legal system has long ensured that everyone is entitled to a 'fair' trial, ultimately being judged by 12 other citizens. This jury is instructed to only come to a guilty verdict that is 'beyond reasonable doubt' and for that to happen the evidence has to be closely examined and tested in an adversarial manner.
This system has served us reasonably well, but in cases such as rape or sexual abuse it's long been recognised that 'special measures' are required in relation to how the victim is treated by the process. All this has been brought into sharp focus recently by the absolutely tragic case of Frances Andrade who it appears took her own life shortly after giving evidence against Michael Brewer, now convicted of several historic counts of indecent assault upon her.
Quite understandably everyone involved in the case will be in the process of reflecting upon their actions and naturally observers in some quarters are wishing to apportion blame. As the Defence Brief says in his post on the subject today:-
"Why do we use this system? Because, only through challenging a witness can you test their evidence, assess the reliability of their account and judge their honesty. This is because sometimes their evidence may be completely honest and accurate from their point of view but it may not stand up to scrutiny because they made a mistake. Sometimes the witness may be actively lying. Sometimes they may have been forced to give evidence in court. We just don't know... until and unless we test the evidence!"
Obviously it has to be done with care, and I'm sure it was, but sadly it seems as if in this case the victim found it unbearable that she felt that she wasn't being believed. Some counts against Brewer were dismissed and she clearly took this as the court feeling that she had been lying. It's understandable, but so sad. With hindsight I suspect more care could possibly have been taken in preparing this woman for the cold, often bruising court process, together with de-briefing and reassurance following the dismissal of some charges.
I understand this complainant had been waiting two years for the case to come to court and during that time had been showing considerable signs of distress. I have to say that I find it shocking that it appears the advice from the police was not to seek professional counselling until after the trial.
There is bound to be an inquiry following this sad case, not least because the Home Secretary Theresa May is concerned that it will adversely affect the willingness of complainants to come forward in the future. I entirely agree and I sincerely hope that the misguided police advice was given over a concern that the victim's evidence might somehow be 'tainted', rather than the shocking and cynical thought that conviction would be more likely if the jury saw a more distraught complainant.
In the end though the blame must lie fairly and squarely upon the perpetrator. If ever there was a case that confirms beyond doubt the potentially devastating effect sex offending can have upon a person's life, this it.
This system has served us reasonably well, but in cases such as rape or sexual abuse it's long been recognised that 'special measures' are required in relation to how the victim is treated by the process. All this has been brought into sharp focus recently by the absolutely tragic case of Frances Andrade who it appears took her own life shortly after giving evidence against Michael Brewer, now convicted of several historic counts of indecent assault upon her.
Quite understandably everyone involved in the case will be in the process of reflecting upon their actions and naturally observers in some quarters are wishing to apportion blame. As the Defence Brief says in his post on the subject today:-
"Why do we use this system? Because, only through challenging a witness can you test their evidence, assess the reliability of their account and judge their honesty. This is because sometimes their evidence may be completely honest and accurate from their point of view but it may not stand up to scrutiny because they made a mistake. Sometimes the witness may be actively lying. Sometimes they may have been forced to give evidence in court. We just don't know... until and unless we test the evidence!"
Obviously it has to be done with care, and I'm sure it was, but sadly it seems as if in this case the victim found it unbearable that she felt that she wasn't being believed. Some counts against Brewer were dismissed and she clearly took this as the court feeling that she had been lying. It's understandable, but so sad. With hindsight I suspect more care could possibly have been taken in preparing this woman for the cold, often bruising court process, together with de-briefing and reassurance following the dismissal of some charges.
I understand this complainant had been waiting two years for the case to come to court and during that time had been showing considerable signs of distress. I have to say that I find it shocking that it appears the advice from the police was not to seek professional counselling until after the trial.
There is bound to be an inquiry following this sad case, not least because the Home Secretary Theresa May is concerned that it will adversely affect the willingness of complainants to come forward in the future. I entirely agree and I sincerely hope that the misguided police advice was given over a concern that the victim's evidence might somehow be 'tainted', rather than the shocking and cynical thought that conviction would be more likely if the jury saw a more distraught complainant.
In the end though the blame must lie fairly and squarely upon the perpetrator. If ever there was a case that confirms beyond doubt the potentially devastating effect sex offending can have upon a person's life, this it.
Monday, 11 February 2013
The Wake
I've attended a few wake's in my time and although always highly emotional, there's normally a laugh or two involved as we fondly remember the life of the departed. This one was different though for several reasons. It was dry, there was no food and the deceased was still with us, just. I didn't hear anyone laughing either.
Of course officially it wasn't a wake, it was a 'consultation' event, organised by the Ministry of Justice, but it bloody well felt like a wake as the duly gathered participants eagerly set about the task of picking over the bones of the Probation Service in just four hours. We were told there was no point in questioning the basic ethos of privatising the service. Ministers had decided and it was now the role of the civil servants to deliver.
Although obviously very capable, it was hardly encouraging to learn that both NOMS officials have backgrounds in the Prison Service and know little of probation. But then as has been said many times before, probation was effectively taken over by the prison service when NOMS was created in the first place.
As the event wore on and animated discussion developed, it became increasingly apparent just how ill-thought out these proposals are and how it is a disaster in the making. Now clearly I'm biased and cannot be said to be coming with an open mind, but I did find it fascinating to watch the mood change as each aspect of the daft plan was dissected, only to be left with hundreds of unanswered questions hanging in the air. Problems that will need sorting in order to try and make a silk purse out of this obvious sow's ear. These civil servants struck me as genuinely wanting some help with their task!
No matter what aspect was addressed, be it public protection, contract design, supply chain or local partnerships, there were more questions than answers. More problems than obvious solutions. Well this is a consultation exercise so maybe that shouldn't be that surprising? But despite the bullishness of some participants, I could sense a mood of thoughtfulness developing in some quarters that could be summarised as 'we like the idea of making some money, but this is a bloody stupid idea.' Does it really make sense to try and design a system of working with people that is going to be an accounting and administrative nightmare?
Mostly from charitable and other third sector organisations hoping to get a 'slice of the action', I found the experience profoundly unsettling, not to say unseemly. I left the event feeling extremely 'uncharitable' towards some organisations intent on getting involved and to be honest secretly hoping that they all get their fingers well and truly burnt in the process. In fact just like many have following their seduction into the DWP's 'Work Programme'.
I was told some charities had gone out of business as a result of having been well and truly 'shafted' by the big contractors and others like St Mungo's will have nothing to do with it. Will it happen again? Yes of course it will - this is all about money after all, not rehabilitation.
Sign the petition here.
Sign for the 38 degree campaign here.
Of course officially it wasn't a wake, it was a 'consultation' event, organised by the Ministry of Justice, but it bloody well felt like a wake as the duly gathered participants eagerly set about the task of picking over the bones of the Probation Service in just four hours. We were told there was no point in questioning the basic ethos of privatising the service. Ministers had decided and it was now the role of the civil servants to deliver.
Although obviously very capable, it was hardly encouraging to learn that both NOMS officials have backgrounds in the Prison Service and know little of probation. But then as has been said many times before, probation was effectively taken over by the prison service when NOMS was created in the first place.
As the event wore on and animated discussion developed, it became increasingly apparent just how ill-thought out these proposals are and how it is a disaster in the making. Now clearly I'm biased and cannot be said to be coming with an open mind, but I did find it fascinating to watch the mood change as each aspect of the daft plan was dissected, only to be left with hundreds of unanswered questions hanging in the air. Problems that will need sorting in order to try and make a silk purse out of this obvious sow's ear. These civil servants struck me as genuinely wanting some help with their task!
No matter what aspect was addressed, be it public protection, contract design, supply chain or local partnerships, there were more questions than answers. More problems than obvious solutions. Well this is a consultation exercise so maybe that shouldn't be that surprising? But despite the bullishness of some participants, I could sense a mood of thoughtfulness developing in some quarters that could be summarised as 'we like the idea of making some money, but this is a bloody stupid idea.' Does it really make sense to try and design a system of working with people that is going to be an accounting and administrative nightmare?
Mostly from charitable and other third sector organisations hoping to get a 'slice of the action', I found the experience profoundly unsettling, not to say unseemly. I left the event feeling extremely 'uncharitable' towards some organisations intent on getting involved and to be honest secretly hoping that they all get their fingers well and truly burnt in the process. In fact just like many have following their seduction into the DWP's 'Work Programme'.
I was told some charities had gone out of business as a result of having been well and truly 'shafted' by the big contractors and others like St Mungo's will have nothing to do with it. Will it happen again? Yes of course it will - this is all about money after all, not rehabilitation.
Sign the petition here.
Sign for the 38 degree campaign here.
Saturday, 9 February 2013
Just Be in My Office on Monday!
With only a few more days left to catch the recent BBC1 tv documentary 'Out of Jail and on the Streets' via i-player, I thought it might be interesting to compare and contrast how we do things here with how they do them over in the United States. As we know, sometimes to our cost, what happens there, eventually arrives over here. Biometric reporting machines and lie-detectors are just two examples that spring to mind.
Well, following an extensive internet search, I've managed to locate this which readers might find both useful, informative and likely to help with relaxation following a difficult week.
Don't forget to sign the petition here - we're up to 17,867 now.
The 38 degrees campaign vote can be registered here - only 73 but every long journey starts with a few small steps. Why not spread the word?
Well, following an extensive internet search, I've managed to locate this which readers might find both useful, informative and likely to help with relaxation following a difficult week.
Don't forget to sign the petition here - we're up to 17,867 now.
The 38 degrees campaign vote can be registered here - only 73 but every long journey starts with a few small steps. Why not spread the word?
Friday, 8 February 2013
Another West Coast Mainline
So the government have changed their minds regarding proposals to scrap the current school examination system, only some 5 months since the idea was championed by the education minister Michael Gove. Apparently this was as a result of significant opposition from his Liberal Democrat coalition partners, oh and the unions, teaching profession, regulator, Wales, Europe and Uncle Tom Cobley and all.
Rather than beat the government up over another 'u-turn', we should applaud them for bowing to commonsense and so avoid another 'West Coast Mainline'. The idea was rubbish so it was binned - result! Surely we need to build a similar case that can demonstrate that plans for the probation service are yet another 'West Coast Mainline' waiting to happen. We have to build a a broad-based consenus in order to achieve the same end.
It's been heartening to see that the BBC1 documentary 'Out of Jail and on the Streets' screened on Tuesday night has been well received. In particular many people have been talking about Vicky and her client Roger. In many ways it represented 'old-style' probation practice, but just as relevant today as in times gone by. The thing is there won't be any scope for dealing with Roger as Vicky did under privatisation and I think the public understands this. I'm sure it was no coincidence that this blog recorded a significant increase in hits after the documentary was screened, along with the No 10 petition which now stands at a healthy 17,662 signatures.
We've got to do more though to stand any chance of being able to try and save our probation service and change government thinking. I was recently reminded that the other major u-turn by government concerned the plan to sell off our publicly-owned forests. It took a massive internet campaign by 38 degrees, 'people, power, change' and a petition of some 600,000 signatures. I notice that there is the beginnings of a suggested similar campaign, but it only has 60 votes! Can I suggest that readers do their best to boost this in order to try and harness the massive potential represented by 38 degree supporters?
It's also encouraging to see that Early Day Motion 622 has attracted 118 signatures, but it's got to be worth trying to get more MP's to sign up as the wording is relatively innocuous:-
"That this House welcomes the news that the Probation Service in England and Wales won the British Quality Foundation Gold Medal for Excellence in 2011; notes that no Probation Trust is deemed to be failing or in need of improvement; further notes that each Probation Trust in England and Wales is meeting its target on the production of court reports, victim satisfaction and the successful completion of orders or licences; and acknowledges the achievements of the Probation Service in England and Wales for carrying out its work efficiently and effectively."
For an excellent analysis of where we are heading in terms of privatising the probation service, I suggest this article by Zoe Williams and published yesterday in the Guardian:-
"This is all based on the principle that the public sector is inherently inefficient. Hand it over to private companies and they will swoop in with their efficiency, their economies of scale, their incentives and their competitiveness, winnowing it down into a dart of perfectly targeted public spending.
In practice, when they say efficiency, that generally means lower wages. When they say economies of scale, that generally means constructing the contracts in such a way as to leave only the largest companies eligible to bid for them. When they say incentives, look closely and you will mainly see perverse incentives. And when they say competition, what you're actually left with is four or five – sometimes only three – companies, who barely compete with one another at all but instead operate as an unelected oligarchy.
Most public services are not about producing microchips, they're about human relationships – care work, parole, job-seeking, even assessing whether or not a disabled person is really disabled; they are about one human being spending time with another. The economist Ha-Joon Chang's famous example of the pitfall of efficiency is that it mainly means making things faster – and yet if you played a minuet at three times the speed, would that improve it?
What happens when these firms, with their inexorable expansionist logic, bite off more than they can chew? We pay anyway. We paid G4S; we will pay it again when its prisons catch fire. We will pay A4e when it finds no jobs, we will pay Serco when its probation services fail. We will pay because even when they're not delivered by the public sector, these are still public services, and the ones that aren't too big to fail are too important. What any government creates with massive-scale outsourcing is not "new efficiency", it is a shadow state; we can't pin it down any more than we can vote it out. All we can do is watch."
Sign the petition here.
Vote for 38 degrees campaign here.
Rather than beat the government up over another 'u-turn', we should applaud them for bowing to commonsense and so avoid another 'West Coast Mainline'. The idea was rubbish so it was binned - result! Surely we need to build a similar case that can demonstrate that plans for the probation service are yet another 'West Coast Mainline' waiting to happen. We have to build a a broad-based consenus in order to achieve the same end.
It's been heartening to see that the BBC1 documentary 'Out of Jail and on the Streets' screened on Tuesday night has been well received. In particular many people have been talking about Vicky and her client Roger. In many ways it represented 'old-style' probation practice, but just as relevant today as in times gone by. The thing is there won't be any scope for dealing with Roger as Vicky did under privatisation and I think the public understands this. I'm sure it was no coincidence that this blog recorded a significant increase in hits after the documentary was screened, along with the No 10 petition which now stands at a healthy 17,662 signatures.
We've got to do more though to stand any chance of being able to try and save our probation service and change government thinking. I was recently reminded that the other major u-turn by government concerned the plan to sell off our publicly-owned forests. It took a massive internet campaign by 38 degrees, 'people, power, change' and a petition of some 600,000 signatures. I notice that there is the beginnings of a suggested similar campaign, but it only has 60 votes! Can I suggest that readers do their best to boost this in order to try and harness the massive potential represented by 38 degree supporters?
It's also encouraging to see that Early Day Motion 622 has attracted 118 signatures, but it's got to be worth trying to get more MP's to sign up as the wording is relatively innocuous:-
"That this House welcomes the news that the Probation Service in England and Wales won the British Quality Foundation Gold Medal for Excellence in 2011; notes that no Probation Trust is deemed to be failing or in need of improvement; further notes that each Probation Trust in England and Wales is meeting its target on the production of court reports, victim satisfaction and the successful completion of orders or licences; and acknowledges the achievements of the Probation Service in England and Wales for carrying out its work efficiently and effectively."
For an excellent analysis of where we are heading in terms of privatising the probation service, I suggest this article by Zoe Williams and published yesterday in the Guardian:-
"This is all based on the principle that the public sector is inherently inefficient. Hand it over to private companies and they will swoop in with their efficiency, their economies of scale, their incentives and their competitiveness, winnowing it down into a dart of perfectly targeted public spending.
In practice, when they say efficiency, that generally means lower wages. When they say economies of scale, that generally means constructing the contracts in such a way as to leave only the largest companies eligible to bid for them. When they say incentives, look closely and you will mainly see perverse incentives. And when they say competition, what you're actually left with is four or five – sometimes only three – companies, who barely compete with one another at all but instead operate as an unelected oligarchy.
Most public services are not about producing microchips, they're about human relationships – care work, parole, job-seeking, even assessing whether or not a disabled person is really disabled; they are about one human being spending time with another. The economist Ha-Joon Chang's famous example of the pitfall of efficiency is that it mainly means making things faster – and yet if you played a minuet at three times the speed, would that improve it?
What happens when these firms, with their inexorable expansionist logic, bite off more than they can chew? We pay anyway. We paid G4S; we will pay it again when its prisons catch fire. We will pay A4e when it finds no jobs, we will pay Serco when its probation services fail. We will pay because even when they're not delivered by the public sector, these are still public services, and the ones that aren't too big to fail are too important. What any government creates with massive-scale outsourcing is not "new efficiency", it is a shadow state; we can't pin it down any more than we can vote it out. All we can do is watch."
Sign the petition here.
Vote for 38 degrees campaign here.
Thursday, 7 February 2013
Sure I've Met Huhne Before
I got a funny feeling whilst watching now-disgraced Chris Huhne as he announced on the steps of Southwark Crown Court his intention to resign his parliamentary seat. Having very, very, very, very reluctantly agreed to plead guilty to perverting the course of justice, and thus confirming that he had lied to us all consistently for the past 18 months, he hardly appeared contrite.
Indeed his reference to having to accept something that he had done some ten years earlier was clearly designed to make us all feel that the passage of so much water under the bridge made the whole thing a complete waste of time and hardly worth the bother. But of course he is rumoured to have spent some £350,000 on hiring England's top lawyer trying to prove it was not really worth the bother, but to no avail.
He was completely cornered. Up shit creek without a paddle, the 'gossamer thin' evidence apparently irrefutable and he was found to be well and truly 'bang to rights' in planting his speeding points onto his wife's licence. All this was obvious to some, including his son, and felt to be highly likely by many, so why continue to lie when the game is clearly up? After all, the scorned wife was not likely to change her mind when it was clear from the beginning that she wanted nothing less than revenge for his walking out on her.
Well, it all comes back to that funny feeling of mine. I've come across this sort of behaviour quite a few times before when dealing with psychopaths. Interestingly I find that several psychologists have been researching the extent to which people with psychopathic traits exist in main stream society and in particular what kind of jobs they gravitate towards. Psychologist Kevin Dutton has written a book on the subject 'The Wisdom of Psychopaths - what Saints, Spies and Serial Killers can teach us about Success.' US Amazon describes it thus:-
Dutton argues that there are indeed “functional psychopaths” among us—different from their murderous counterparts—who use their detached, unflinching, and charismatic personalities to succeed in mainstream society, and that shockingly, in some fields, the more “psychopathic” people are, the more likely they are to succeed. Dutton deconstructs this often misunderstood diagnosis through bold on-the-ground reporting and original scientific research as he mingles with the criminally insane in a high-security ward, shares a drink with one of the world’s most successful con artists, and undergoes transcranial magnetic stimulation to discover firsthand exactly how it feels to see through the eyes of a psychopath.
As Dutton develops his theory that we all possess psychopathic tendencies, he puts forward the argument that society as a whole is more psychopathic than ever: after all, psychopaths tend to be fearless, confident, charming, ruthless, and focused—qualities that are tailor-made for success in the twenty-first century. Provocative at every turn, The Wisdom of Psychopaths is a riveting adventure that reveals that it’s our much-maligned dark side that often conceals the trump cards of success.
It seems that amongst the occupations with the highest tendency of attracting psychopaths are CEO, lawyer, media, sales, surgeon, journalist, police, clergy, chef and civil servant. On the other hand certain jobs have the lowest likelihood, such as care assistant, nurse, therapist, crafts, beautician, charity, teacher, artist, doctor and accountant. Members of Parliament and probation officers are not mentioned, but educated guesses can be made.
Another academic who has looked into this issue is Lisa Marshall of Glasgow Caledonian University, quoted here in The Independent back in 1996, confirming that politics and stock market trading are attractive occupations for psychopaths:-
"Politicians and stockbrokers share many of the same characteristics as criminal psychopaths. The only difference is that career high-flyers usually stay within the law. Some could be defined as "successful psychopaths", according to Lisa Marshall, a psychologist at Glasgow's Caledonian University.
In a three-year research project that involved interviewing 105 long- term offenders in Scottish prisons, she discovered that upbringing appeared to be an important factor in whether a child became a psychopath, as well as genetic make-up.
To discover which offenders were psychopaths she questioned them and compared their answers to a widely used list of 20 characteristics of a psychopath, the annual conference of the British Psychological Society's criminological and legal division were told. To be considered a psychopath, they needed to display a number of the 20 core characteristics. Ms Marshall added that people in some high-powered careers, such as stockbroking and politics - she did not rule out journalists - had enough of the 20 characteristics to be defined as psychopathic.
She said: "Successful psychopaths included people with careers such as stockbrokers, where a lot of action was happening and where they had a lot of power. "They have to be quite cold and callous. You could say a politician. [They] might be in control and have power. They are risk-takers. They have the characteristics of psychopaths but without the criminal intent." She added that psychopaths made good fraudsters.
So, food for thought as a probation officer somewhere prepares to interview and write quite a memorable PSR. In passing, I feel I ought to say I've been genuinely surprised by the degree of sympathy Mr Huhne has attracted in certain quarters. I've even had someone remark that the matter was 'trivial.' Well, perverting the course of justice is extremely serious indeed (maximum sentence life imprisonment) and every report I've written involving the charge has resulted in custody. 18 months to two years would be my hunch.
PS Here is a handy check list should readers feel the need to conduct their own personal psychopathy assessment at home - it's best to answer as truthfully as possible:-
PPS - to sign the petition go here.
Indeed his reference to having to accept something that he had done some ten years earlier was clearly designed to make us all feel that the passage of so much water under the bridge made the whole thing a complete waste of time and hardly worth the bother. But of course he is rumoured to have spent some £350,000 on hiring England's top lawyer trying to prove it was not really worth the bother, but to no avail.
He was completely cornered. Up shit creek without a paddle, the 'gossamer thin' evidence apparently irrefutable and he was found to be well and truly 'bang to rights' in planting his speeding points onto his wife's licence. All this was obvious to some, including his son, and felt to be highly likely by many, so why continue to lie when the game is clearly up? After all, the scorned wife was not likely to change her mind when it was clear from the beginning that she wanted nothing less than revenge for his walking out on her.
Well, it all comes back to that funny feeling of mine. I've come across this sort of behaviour quite a few times before when dealing with psychopaths. Interestingly I find that several psychologists have been researching the extent to which people with psychopathic traits exist in main stream society and in particular what kind of jobs they gravitate towards. Psychologist Kevin Dutton has written a book on the subject 'The Wisdom of Psychopaths - what Saints, Spies and Serial Killers can teach us about Success.' US Amazon describes it thus:-
Dutton argues that there are indeed “functional psychopaths” among us—different from their murderous counterparts—who use their detached, unflinching, and charismatic personalities to succeed in mainstream society, and that shockingly, in some fields, the more “psychopathic” people are, the more likely they are to succeed. Dutton deconstructs this often misunderstood diagnosis through bold on-the-ground reporting and original scientific research as he mingles with the criminally insane in a high-security ward, shares a drink with one of the world’s most successful con artists, and undergoes transcranial magnetic stimulation to discover firsthand exactly how it feels to see through the eyes of a psychopath.
As Dutton develops his theory that we all possess psychopathic tendencies, he puts forward the argument that society as a whole is more psychopathic than ever: after all, psychopaths tend to be fearless, confident, charming, ruthless, and focused—qualities that are tailor-made for success in the twenty-first century. Provocative at every turn, The Wisdom of Psychopaths is a riveting adventure that reveals that it’s our much-maligned dark side that often conceals the trump cards of success.
It seems that amongst the occupations with the highest tendency of attracting psychopaths are CEO, lawyer, media, sales, surgeon, journalist, police, clergy, chef and civil servant. On the other hand certain jobs have the lowest likelihood, such as care assistant, nurse, therapist, crafts, beautician, charity, teacher, artist, doctor and accountant. Members of Parliament and probation officers are not mentioned, but educated guesses can be made.
Another academic who has looked into this issue is Lisa Marshall of Glasgow Caledonian University, quoted here in The Independent back in 1996, confirming that politics and stock market trading are attractive occupations for psychopaths:-
"Politicians and stockbrokers share many of the same characteristics as criminal psychopaths. The only difference is that career high-flyers usually stay within the law. Some could be defined as "successful psychopaths", according to Lisa Marshall, a psychologist at Glasgow's Caledonian University.
In a three-year research project that involved interviewing 105 long- term offenders in Scottish prisons, she discovered that upbringing appeared to be an important factor in whether a child became a psychopath, as well as genetic make-up.
To discover which offenders were psychopaths she questioned them and compared their answers to a widely used list of 20 characteristics of a psychopath, the annual conference of the British Psychological Society's criminological and legal division were told. To be considered a psychopath, they needed to display a number of the 20 core characteristics. Ms Marshall added that people in some high-powered careers, such as stockbroking and politics - she did not rule out journalists - had enough of the 20 characteristics to be defined as psychopathic.
She said: "Successful psychopaths included people with careers such as stockbrokers, where a lot of action was happening and where they had a lot of power. "They have to be quite cold and callous. You could say a politician. [They] might be in control and have power. They are risk-takers. They have the characteristics of psychopaths but without the criminal intent." She added that psychopaths made good fraudsters.
So, food for thought as a probation officer somewhere prepares to interview and write quite a memorable PSR. In passing, I feel I ought to say I've been genuinely surprised by the degree of sympathy Mr Huhne has attracted in certain quarters. I've even had someone remark that the matter was 'trivial.' Well, perverting the course of justice is extremely serious indeed (maximum sentence life imprisonment) and every report I've written involving the charge has resulted in custody. 18 months to two years would be my hunch.
PS Here is a handy check list should readers feel the need to conduct their own personal psychopathy assessment at home - it's best to answer as truthfully as possible:-
o Selfish
o Callous
o Remorseless user of others
o Pathological liar
o Glib and a con artist
o Lacking in remorse
o Shallow
o Fails to accept responsibility for actions
o Has high sense of self-worth
o Is chronically unstable
o Is anti-social
o Has socially deviant lifestyle
o Needs constant stimulation
o Has parasitic lifestyle
o Had childhood problems
o Was juvenile delinquent
o Is irresponsible
o Has unrealistic goals
o Promiscuous
PPS - to sign the petition go here.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Out of Jail and On the Streets - Verdict
Now I've had chance to reflect on the BBC1 fly-on-the-wall documentary 'out of jail and on the streets', I'm tempted to pass a few comments. It's on i-player here and a news item can be found here.
First off I think it confirms what many of us have suspected, namely that there's plenty of interesting story lines to have a go at. The production company did a good job and I think the edited version tries to be fair in terms of how the 'protagonists' are portrayed. Clients, bless 'em, just tend to say what they think with little or no insight into the irony of some of it, like the rapist who can't see what the problem is in 'going round to collect some things' from an ex whilst 'high' at 2 in the morning. Recall was entirely appropriate in my view.
The sex offenders featured in the programme give a flavour of what sort of issues probation face in supervising them in the community, but I'd have been happier had I seen some evidence of SOTP courses either whilst in prison or as licence conditions. It's no good just monitoring, we also have to be doing some work that seeks to address the often distorted reasoning that lies behind behaviour. I'm probably being grossly unfair on a programme of only an hour's duration and without sight of the files, so I guess I'm making a case for a long-overdue series.
As has been highlighted by a commentator to this blog, one danger in a programme like this is that the film crew will record the interview between officer and client, then get the client on their own to say 'what they really' think. So it was that we learnt that Dave regards it all as a 'game of cat and mouse' when 'messing' with probation and 'they only want to set us up to fail.'
Having been imprisoned for the drunken joint kidnap of a guy, who is then tortured into supplying further alcohol, Dave explains with not untypical twisted logic that the offence wasn't alcohol-related - 'I just do bad things and the alcohol helps me to forget.' In the process of course he completely confirms the accuracy of his supervision plan that seeks to restrict his alcohol intake. One wonders again though what work was done with him whilst in prison, and indeed why there appears to be no licence requirement to attend an alcohol-offending programme?
To be honest Dave did bother me because the team appeared not to know him. I wonder at what point the public protection team picked up the case and who if anyone visited him in prison? I've said it before and I say it again. In my book best practice is for the PSR author to see the case right through from initial interview to end-of-licence. This guy is going to need a fair amount of work and he needs the stability and consistency of an officer who gets to know him over time. Recall was sadly inevitable.
I think the point about the relationship between officer and client is admirably borne out by the sad case of Roger and his officer Vicky. What struck me most about this was that Vicky felt obliged to pass comment on the amount of care and work she had expended on her clients behalf. You just know that she was somehow made to feel a little uncomfortable about 'going the extra mile' and I find that very unfortunate indeed.
The officer should not be made to feel like that because I think most people can see that it all makes complete sense. Public protection cannot come 'just' from monitoring - G4S could do that heaven forfend - real public protection and effective rehabilitation comes from changing attitudes and fixing problems as well, and that takes compassion, skill and experience. To me this programme began to give us a sense of the magic that is indeed 'probation.' A good start, so more please BBC!
PS To sign the petition go here.
First off I think it confirms what many of us have suspected, namely that there's plenty of interesting story lines to have a go at. The production company did a good job and I think the edited version tries to be fair in terms of how the 'protagonists' are portrayed. Clients, bless 'em, just tend to say what they think with little or no insight into the irony of some of it, like the rapist who can't see what the problem is in 'going round to collect some things' from an ex whilst 'high' at 2 in the morning. Recall was entirely appropriate in my view.
The sex offenders featured in the programme give a flavour of what sort of issues probation face in supervising them in the community, but I'd have been happier had I seen some evidence of SOTP courses either whilst in prison or as licence conditions. It's no good just monitoring, we also have to be doing some work that seeks to address the often distorted reasoning that lies behind behaviour. I'm probably being grossly unfair on a programme of only an hour's duration and without sight of the files, so I guess I'm making a case for a long-overdue series.
As has been highlighted by a commentator to this blog, one danger in a programme like this is that the film crew will record the interview between officer and client, then get the client on their own to say 'what they really' think. So it was that we learnt that Dave regards it all as a 'game of cat and mouse' when 'messing' with probation and 'they only want to set us up to fail.'
Having been imprisoned for the drunken joint kidnap of a guy, who is then tortured into supplying further alcohol, Dave explains with not untypical twisted logic that the offence wasn't alcohol-related - 'I just do bad things and the alcohol helps me to forget.' In the process of course he completely confirms the accuracy of his supervision plan that seeks to restrict his alcohol intake. One wonders again though what work was done with him whilst in prison, and indeed why there appears to be no licence requirement to attend an alcohol-offending programme?
To be honest Dave did bother me because the team appeared not to know him. I wonder at what point the public protection team picked up the case and who if anyone visited him in prison? I've said it before and I say it again. In my book best practice is for the PSR author to see the case right through from initial interview to end-of-licence. This guy is going to need a fair amount of work and he needs the stability and consistency of an officer who gets to know him over time. Recall was sadly inevitable.
I think the point about the relationship between officer and client is admirably borne out by the sad case of Roger and his officer Vicky. What struck me most about this was that Vicky felt obliged to pass comment on the amount of care and work she had expended on her clients behalf. You just know that she was somehow made to feel a little uncomfortable about 'going the extra mile' and I find that very unfortunate indeed.
The officer should not be made to feel like that because I think most people can see that it all makes complete sense. Public protection cannot come 'just' from monitoring - G4S could do that heaven forfend - real public protection and effective rehabilitation comes from changing attitudes and fixing problems as well, and that takes compassion, skill and experience. To me this programme began to give us a sense of the magic that is indeed 'probation.' A good start, so more please BBC!
PS To sign the petition go here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)