Probation Journal 2010 Scott 291 5

8/11/2019 Probation Journal 2010 Scott 291 5

1/6

http://prb.sagepub.com/Probation Journal

http://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291Theonline version of this article can be foundat:

DOI: 10.1177/0264550510373812

2010 57: 291Probation JournalDavid M Scott

Who's protecting who?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff

can be found at:Probation JournalAdditional services and information for

http://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://prb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 24, 2010Version of Record>>

at University of Manchester Library on December 1, 2013prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Manchester Library on December 1, 2013prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291http://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291http://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.napo.org.uk/http://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.refs.htmlhttp://www.napo.org.uk/http://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://prb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://prb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.refs.htmlhttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://prb.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.full.pdfhttp://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.full.pdfhttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.full.pdfhttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.refs.htmlhttp://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://prb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://prb.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://prb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.napo.org.uk/http://www.napo.org.uk/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/content/57/3/291http://prb.sagepub.com/


2/6

Whos protecting who?

David M Scott,Chair, Probation Chiefs Association (20089)

Abstract The author was invited by the Probation Journal to comment from hisown leadership perspective on a serious case failure and its aftermath. He considersthe context of the case, the predominant political culture of command and controland the crude allocation of blame. He concludes that these factors, together withpolitical short-termism, jeopardize public protection because they preclude open-ness to learning at every level, including Government.

Keywords leadership, learning, openness, ownership, public protection,uncertainty

The emasculation of the Probation Service over the past ten years has been accompa-nied by political apathy and public indifference. At the beginning of this Millenniumthere was much talk of giving Probation a national voice and a strengthened role inthe Criminal Justice System. At the end of the decade, Probation has been pushedfrom pillar to post. Far from having a national voice, the organization, which at anyone time supervises 200,000 plus offenders in the community, is not even representedin its own right in key national decision-making fora but subsumed within a vast PrisonService dominated bureaucracy. A national asset is being squandered.

For the best part of one hundred years, Probation was led locally and overseenby a light touch Home Office unit which provided administration and the criticalinterface with ministers. The role of the Chief Officer was to deliver professionallocal leadership and to work closely with the very communities where offendinghappened and to which all but the most dangerous offenders would return oncompletion of their prison sentence.

The predominant political themes of the past ten years have been a growingintolerance of crime and anti-social behaviour and an emphasis on punishment,public protection and the improvement of criminal justice performance across thewhole system. Arguably no other agency has been as affected as Probation by thepolitical short-termism and opportunism which have prevailed in a period ofheightened public anxiety and frustration about law and order failings. The

The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice

Copyright 2010 NAPO Vol 57(3): 291-295DOI: 10.1177/0264550510373812www.napo.org.ukhttp://prb.sagepub.com

Comment

291Downloaded from http://prb.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on February 5, 2010

at University of Manchester Library on December 1, 2013prb.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/


3/6

increased risk aversion and intolerance which have followed a series of high profilecases have been well documented but the massive impact on Probation workloadand capacity has been conveniently ignored.

In 2001, Probation for the first time became a national service complete with aNational Director and a mood of genuine optimism among Chief Officers. The pri-vate political rhetoric was of backing Chiefs and giving them the tools to do a verydifficult job. Within the blink of an eye, it seemed the National Director post wasdowngraded, then marginalized within the newly created National Offender Man-agement Service (NOMS).

A feature of these changes has been the absence of consultation. Change hasbeen imposed. In quick succession Probation moved from having its own leaderto becoming part of NOMS, then unifiedat head office level within the Prison Ser-

vice and moved from the Home Office to the newly created Ministry of Justice. TheHouse of Commons Justice Committee has expressed its concern about thesechanges:

We are concerned that there are no probation staff at a senior level in NOMS: thissuggests a lack of advocacy on behalf of probation for better resources. We have notseen any evidence which suggests that bringing together prisons and probation hasyet had a positive impact; in fact the available evidence on the financial outcomes ofthis merger point to the contrary. We are deeply concerned at this indication that the

Government is moving further towards a prisons-oriented criminal justice system(House of Commons Justice Committee, 2010: 10).

When I became London Probations Chief Officer it was in the aftermath of theHanson and Whitecase which had involved the brutal murder of a financier in hishome by two offenders under supervision. Subsequent to the sentencing in thistragic case I met both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary individually todiscuss pressing issues about public protection. This is in sharp contrast to theNOMS environment of 2008 when Dano Sonnex, an offender being supervisedby London Probation, murdered two French students shortly after his release fromprison on licence. By this time there were several additional tiers of management,with key personnel in temporary positions and critical business functions likefinance, information technology and business accommodation, being cobbledtogether as we went along. At no time was I invited to meet the Justice Secretaryon London Probation business.

There is an unshakeable tenet of the Probation Service that should apply as muchto leadership and management as it does to the vital front line work between proba-tion staff and offenders for change to happen there must be ownership and accep-tance of personal responsibility. Displacement of blame on to others is as sure a sign

as probation staff will get that real change is being thwarted or denied. For thisreason, the abdication of political leadership in the Sonnex case is deeplydisturbing.

My mantra from day one in London was that the buck stopped with me as ChiefOfficer (I was advised from above that thiswas an inherently risky position to take).I resigned as Chief Officer for London Probation because something had gone badly

57(3)292

Downloaded from http://prb.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on February 5, 2010



4/6

wrong. Two innocent young men had died terrible deaths at the hands of Sonnexand another individual. Failings by the service I led and the wider criminal justicesystem contributed to their deaths.

However nothing had prepared me for the duplicity of the agency nor, moreshockingly, the posturing of the then Justice Secretary in the national media. Whythe Justice Secretary should state that I had been suspended when I had not remainsa mystery to me. His assertion that I would have been sacked (prejudging any hear-ing) is deeply ironic coming from the head of the Ministry of Justice. I had expectedand received intrusive door-stepping by the media at my home but not careless fal-sehoods from those with the power to provide perspective and balance. Does thismatter, or is it just another symptom of the political life in our country which has des-cended to such tawdry depths?

I believe it matters greatly. For organizations to learn lessons (just as with people)there has to be a willingness to face up to what has gone wrong, however unpala-table. The best private sector organizations know that this openness to learning andnew ideas is at the heart of their competitive advantage. Ed Schein, widelyregarded as the world authority on organizational development, believes the will-ingness of leaders to be open and to listen (to staff and service users) is as muchabout survival as competitive advantage. In his lecture Why the Leader of the FutureMust be a Humble Inquirer, Schein (2009) argued that neither effectiveness, norsafety can be improved without a genuine desire to learn across cultural divides.

Command and control, the modus operandi of NOMS, and political style of choiceof the then Government, is outmoded. A similar argument has been made by DavidSpiegelhalter, Professor of Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University The main problem is that if scientists and politicians are too certain, then adaptingto new information can be slow or embarrassing. He concluded that:

Politicians need to be willing to accept scientific uncertainty and still take decisions,and this means getting an idea of the magnitude of the risks, even when ourunderstanding is incomplete. None of us expects certainty in our lives but we could allget better at acknowledging our ignorance without succumbing to the twin perils ofpanic or paralysis.

(Spiegelhalter, 2009)

In 2006, after six years experience as a member of the Parole Board, I wrote in theForeword to a book on public protection and the criminal justice process, that theauthor wished that the runaway train of public protection could be slowed suffi-ciently to allow for mature reflection and informed debate: It may not be possibleto affect the speed of the train, but if this book helps to improve the signalling andtrack on which the train runs it will have made a very substantial contribution to

really protecting the public (Nash, 2006). Although I did not realize it at the timethese words would have very real resonance for London Probation.

At the time of Sonnexs release from prison, London Probation had recognizedthe need for transformation and embarked on the journey with strengthening publicprotection at the core of its strategy. The pattern of improvement and sound financialhousekeeping had been recognized by the Her Majestys Inspectorate of Probation

Scott Whos protecting who? 293




5/6

and London Probations External Auditor alike. What London desperately neededand constantly sought were the nationalenablers(the improvements to the signal-ling and track) to allow it to plan and flourish. Above all, it needed high level cover

to grow the skills and competence of its committed but overstretched and inexper-ienced staff. The myopic behaviour of the Justice Secretary and others precludedreal, long term learning into the tragic failures of the Sonnex case. For example,the question of Probation resourcing was trivialized into tabloid sound bites to theeffect that money allocated to Probation hadnt been spent fully, therefore theproblem was with management. In reality it takes time to plan, recruit and developa diverse workforce skilled and flexible enough to meet the inexorable rise indemand for its services. It has been a feature of recent years that well groundedpolicy and resourcing has lagged behind initiatives such as indeterminate sen-

tences or creating a viable framework for private sector involvement in servicedelivery.

The Probation future is for others to forge but the risks it faces are considerableand it is desperately important that the wider issues raised by the Sonnex case aredebated openly. In Scheins words, it is high time for humble inquiry and to set asidethe obsession with technical quick fixes and confront the complexities of the biggerpicture. How can Probation continue to exist, let alone flourish, without its ownnational leadership? Who represents Probation in the corridors of power andargues its corner when crucial decisions about resourcing and public profile are

made? Is Probation best placed in the Ministry of Justice when many would argueit belongs more with the Police in the Home Office? What model best enables ChiefOfficers to deliver high quality local services? Why is probation practice so deskbound, and why is there no real time inter-agency training simulation to build con-fidence and share learning across cultures?

Fear and cynicism are highly corrosive forces. It is vital for the well-being of thiscountry and the many worldwide jurisdictions which look to the United Kingdom forleadership that Probation retains a strong heartbeat fuelled by the best professionalpractice. The tragic Sonnex case and other notorious public protection failures quiteproperly challenge our very foundations.

Commenting on the shortcomings of the free market target driven culture of thepublic sector one of this countrys most senior police officers wrote recently: Thesaddest irony is that public sector leaders crave the loyalty and respect of the peoplethey serve (Bettison, 2010). I share this view. In my experience Probation Chief Offi-cers are highly motivated, still driven largely by a sense of vocation and remarkablyskilled and committed in their professional service to their political masters. Increas-ingly, as with the Armed Forces and other public sector organizations in the spot-light, they are alarmed by the short term, knee jerk reaction of most politiciansand they question Who is protecting who?

Political failure to provide perspective and balance corrodes the mutual trustwhich must be at the heart of reform and change. Instead of building confidencein public protection it creates a fault line which is inherently dangerous because itprevents open analysis of failure and the genuine steps needed to bring about last-ing change. The celebrated poet Ben Okri(1999), who has spoken at a nationalprobation conference and is revered by many probation staff, wrote:

57(3)294




6/6

And so hold on to the best

Things of the awakened mind.Only the most solid and intangibleAspects of the human spirit

Can save us from succumbingTo the waves of panic

That engulf us temporarily.

Probation staff have a remarkable history of adaptation and courage against theodds. These qualities and a willingness to speak up for the service will be crucial toits imperilled future.

References

Bettison, N.(2010) We Cant Afford the Nonsense of Huge Public Sector Salaries(Including Mine),The Yorkshire Post, 12 April.

House of Commons Justice Committee (2010)Cutting Crime: The Case for JusticeReinvestment, First Report of Session 200910, Volume 1:10.

Nash, M.(2006)Public Protection and the Criminal Justice Process. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Okri, B.(1999) Mental Fight An Anti-Spell for the 21st

Century. London: PhoenixHouse.

Schein, E.(2009) Why the Leader of the Future must be a Humble Inquirer, Lecture inLondon, 17 November 2009. DVD available from: www.quality-equality.com

Spiegelhalter, D.(2009) An Uncertain Scientists Guide to Taking Risks, The Times, 4November.

David M ScottCQSW, BSc, MBA qualified as a Probation Officer in the1970s. He served as Chief Officer for West Sussex, Hampshire and London20052009; Chair of Hampshire Criminal Justice Board and Vice Chairof the London CJB; Member of the Parole Board 19992005; FounderMember and Inaugural Chair of Probation Chiefs Association. Email:[email protected]

Scott Whos protecting who? 295


http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/http://prb.sagepub.com/

Documents

Probation Journal 2010 Scott 291 5