One of the most enjoyable and satisfying parts of the job used to be writing court reports. When I started they were called Social Enquiry Reports, but they were renamed Pre Sentence Reports some time ago. The astute will not have failed to notice the use of the past tense. The concept is quite straight forward - following a guilty plea or finding of guilt, the sentencers request a probation officer to interview the defendant, assimilate all relevant information and provide in written form background information about the defendant, their current situation, the circumstances of the offence and most importantly a suggestion as to possible sentence and with reasons. The probation officer has a privileged opportunity of speaking directly to the sentencers from an independent viewpoint and as such can be extremely persuasive in being able to influence the eventual outcome. Not surprisingly therefore this has always been seen as a key skill and most officers take enormous pride in producing high quality reports that result in courts following their recommendations. In the past it was felt to be good practice to attend court in person with either a controversial, unusual or brave recommendation in order to be able to re-inforce it on oath if necessary. Sadly, hardly any of this is true nowadays.
Several years ago I was offered the opportunity of moving out of a field office and into a Court Officers post. Many, including myself, felt that this meant being put out to grass, but I needed a break from the front line and I was flattered when management said they wanted 'a safe pair of hands; someone who looked smart and could talk whilst stood on their feet'. It didn't take long to discover just how far the art of PSR writing had deteriorated. On I daily basis I found myself having to try and explain, correct and apologise for colleagues poor quality work. How could this have possibly happened? To a large degree, but not completely, the answer is OASys - the all-singing, all-dancing universal offender assessment tool. Unbelievably nowadays this mammoth, brain-numbing, 90 page computer form is required to be completed before the magic button 'prepare report' is pressed. Yes, modern-day PSR's are computer-generated, so it really shouldn't be that surprising if many of them are unintelligible, riddled with repetition and impossibly 'cranky' sentences. Old timers like myself gave up long ago trying to edit the result into something readable and just throw the whole lot away and start again. More recent officers say they haven't got the time, and to be honest why should they if the system is that crap? What beats me is how did any intelligent human being think that this was a good way to write a report for court? As an aid to sentencing, I think the days of the PSR are numbered. Not surprisingly, the 'authors' never seem to show up at court either. Me? - I do on occasion, just out of sheer devilment.
I have to say that most of the PSRs I read up in our neck of the woods are well written and propose largely sensible sentences which I and my colleagues nearly always adopt. So don't be too down hearted, as I (at least) think you do a good job, and only regret the government's constant attempts to impose more work on you for less money.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - very good to hear that, however I still might be a little concerned as there seems to be a tendency for report authors to 'up tariff' people by suggesting either multiple conditions on a community order, suspended sentences or custody even.
ReplyDelete"how did any intelligent human being think that this was a good way to write a report for court?" - I doubt that any human being who knew what was required actually DID think that. I suspect it was more a question of an MoJ or Home Office official or junior Minister ticking a box that earned them a brownie point through "innovative use of IT". Nothing more sinister than that - and nothing more idiotic.
ReplyDeleteOASys was supposedly intended to assist risk assessment (It might standardise it, but I'm not sure it improves the skill), there was a time when needs were assessed as well but that time seems long gone. The bean counters clearly didn't understand that the information contained in OASys and Court reports overlap to an extent but are not interchangeable.
ReplyDeletePresumably the bean counters at the centre naively wanted to reduce the amount of time PO's spent writing reports?
In my service officers typically offer three PSR slots each week in addition to their case load (30-40, normally higher end in terms of risk). To my knowledge the national agreement is they should take 6.5 hours to complete each interview, data gathering, assessment and report. This is not unachievable or unrealistic in many circumstances (it is absurd in others) but there clearly doesn't leave much time to fulfill the various other tasks, like face to face work. Instead they are reliant on no-shows and nil reports to have the space to get things done.
betteroffout - the absurd thing is that prior to OASys, experienced officers could easily interview, type or dictate and correct a PSR in three hours - four at most - I've done it hundreds of times and it was a pleasure. I used to actually write 120 reports a year, not counting nils. I think OASys has made that level of productivity impossible.
ReplyDeleteAw but Jim, think of all that valuable information you could have spent time recording and forwarding to the Home Office/MOJ! ;)
ReplyDeleteWho are they trying to fool? OASys has become one of many tools to push forward the de-professionalism of the service so eventually any gibbon can press the 'print sentencing report' button in exchange for peanut. And that's coming from a DipPS PO.
Don't think you've mentioned yet how they reduced the minimum age for TPO's to 18? What was that you said about life experience?
Incidentally, have you encountered SARN reports?
betteroffout - yes you're right of course, that was one driver behind OASys, the use of unqualified staff - so much to say - so little time! Blimey I hadn't noticed the age reduction for TPO's - breathtaking! SARN - yes 'fraid so - maybe a post on it soon.
ReplyDeleteCheers,
Jim
I think you'll find the same computer system anywhere - look at the cut and paste school reports, the cumbersome attempts at NHS IT. It seem to be pervasive everywhere. No one believes in professional integrity, we are all considered automatically dishonest, unless we have recorded it on a cumbersome computer system or filled in a cumbersome overcomplicated assessment form. All very sad.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who designs information systems, I can tell you that the goal is almost always to automate repetitive tasks without diminishing the value of the data. It's sad to see that technology is being used simply to replace human input (cut costs) without the end result being kept at a certain quality. Technology can be an excellent tool to reduce meaningless paperwork but cannot replace compassion, ethics and complex tasks involving human behaviour.
ReplyDeleteBTW - excellent blog.
betterofout? - Is it really the case that you have 30-40 cases? Our average at the moment tends to be in the 50s... bad times!! But then I shouldnt complain, at least I'm not in the situation that Sonnex's OM was of 100+!
ReplyDeletemmm Caseloads...Drug work 50 - 100 complex & safeguarding, prescribed, I wish I'd stuck with your lot now ! :'(
ReplyDelete