Monday 21 April 2014

Cautionary Tales

Jonathan Aitken's ambush and smug appearance on media channels over Easter has served to stimulate quite a lively debate about the use of volunteers and mentors within the criminal justice system. It serves to highlight the whole murky world of politically motivated and funded 'think tanks' that churn out stuff in support of their political chums. But it also serves to confirm how shaky and naive the foundations are of the whole TR omnishambles agenda. 

Of course volunteers have always played an important part in probation work, but they have to be very carefully selected, trained and supported, or things can go seriously wrong. They are most definitely not a cheap or quick fix to solving reoffending and if prospective bidders for our work think that, they will quite quickly realise differently:-   

I am a PO in a high risk team and want to share two examples working with mentors/volunteers.

I was writing a PSR on a man for a violent offence who committed this whilst subject to the at risk period of a previous sentence. The mentor (working in a drugs agency) repeatedly contacted me to provide information of the man's progress and sought to both influence me and to gain insight into my assessment of him. I felt under some pressure from her and a mentor from the much lauded community farm where this man did some work experience. Both were called as character witnesses and his defence counsel indicated I had told lies in my report.


Alerted by the Court team over the lunch recess I drove to the Crown Court and the Judge was made aware the report author was in court. She stated to his counsel "I am not prepared to call the report author a liar" and I was not called. When sentenced to a lengthy custodial sentence the man shouted in open court "F*** Off I never want to see you again, you said this wouldn't happen" to the poor woman. The Judge stated he had pulled the wool over the eyes of everyone except the Probation Officer. I had to comfort her outside the court, she was distraught as they had been in an intimate relationship and she was unaware of much of his offending history. Later, evidence came to light he had been dealing class A drugs in both projects.

The second concerned a volunteer with a church based charity working with asylum seekers who wanted to support a sex offender after he came out on licence. She wanted him to reside in her home because he was a thoroughly decent man. She was a grandmother with her grandchildren visiting her home regularly. He was high ROSH to children and police risk managers and my manager authorised disclosure which she simply refused to believe. She did not have any frame of reference to understand the risk she was inviting into her home. Under his licence he was not allowed to reside with her but her willingness to help him at all costs born out of genuine altruism, really undermined the relationship between PO and client. Eventually we were able to rescue this and he went on to successfully complete his licence having been supported by me to gain suitable independent accommodation and employment. It just is not that simple is it Mr Aitken?


I notice that Pat Waterman, Chair of Greater London Napo Branch, has reminded us of a recent very disturbing case:-

A Cautionary Tale for Mr Grayling

Those of you who have been working in probation for some time will know that a good volunteer can be worth their weight in gold. They can provide the additional help and support that so many of our clients need. But they need to be supervised and are no substitute for professionally trained staff.

Earlier this year, one of my members, Terry Wilson, in giving evidence in the trial of one of his clients accused, with others, of carrying out a murder in a joint enterprise last year said he was shocked to discover that he was in a relationship with his support mentor. The woman, who was also standing trial for Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs and Perverting the Course of Justice, had been the client's mentor while he was in Portland prison and on his release.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10946866.Court_hears_of__shock__over_alleged_murderers_relationship_with_mentor/?ref=erec

Perhaps Mr Grayling needs to think again before he sells off a large part of our work to private companies who, in order to make a profit, are bound to try and cut staff costs by using "so-called" mentors.

45 comments:

  1. Maybe the private companies need to think again too. Not only will successful bidders get the contract, they also get all the blame when the sift stuff hits the fan, and all the public fall out that goes with it.
    If someone being supervised by a private company hits the headlines, rest assured that not only the media will be sticking the boot in , but also the MoJ. Contracts come with full responsibillity not just an easy few bucks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have to disagree. I doubt any issue like the one Jim above will ever hit mainstream headlines. The media is very much in the pockets of the rich and powerful - so it's a little naive to think that bidders will be somehow frightened off by an incident as mentioned above.

      Delete
    2. Except a lot of the bidders are 'charities' albeit almost entirely funded by government contracts, but nevertheless are concerned about their reputational image.

      Delete
    3. There are organisations already offering courses on reputation management to TR bidders, so it's pretty clear this is an active concern for many of them. The storm around G4S and Serco failing to operate their tagging contracts is only a taste of what could come. And they should also worry about being sued by victims and their families.

      Bad news is always news, especially where there's someone to blame - and the only thing better than a bad news story is a bad news sex story.

      Delete
  2. I think you will find many examples of 'partner agents' having affairs with our clients. I know of least two and would be very surprised if there were not several more which are undiscovered or now ended. The problem being is that this leads to collusion and inaccurate reporting of risk factors. The example above should be wheeled out time and time again (if Grayling can regurgitate the same old rhetoric then so can we!

    This is not isolated to volunteers; G4S also have form but I feel there was a more sinister motive behind the guards having relationships with female detainees and another open goal that NAPO appear to have missed!


    I'm not sure who is running the press section at NAPO but I do not think they are overworked!

    ReplyDelete
  3. On Russia Today (Going Underground) there was an article about the big four accountancy firms and their close relations with government and it was reported that KPMG bunged Chris Grayling £30,000. He's a lucky lad aint he!

    Money power and political power seem to be the same thing in our "democracy" and that's not forgetting media power. Think Tanks are propaganda machines for the powerful. Come to think of it Probation was a very different and better thing before the powerful started messing. Don't worry I'm beginning to understand just how powerless probation staff are; never wanted any before but I can think of a few things I'd like to do now and it aint pretty.
    papa

    ReplyDelete
  4. What a load of sanctimonious twaddle. Despite understanding risk there are numerous probation staff that forge intimate relationships with offenders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Numerous" - care to add some numbers? 1? 2? 10? 1000? Or are you just plucking this out of the air?

      Delete
    2. Anon at 09:32 Well lets speak from experience as well. In all my years I've heard of one instance and that was with our civil divorce court work many years ago. Of course it must happen, but in comparison to other professions it's extremely rare. Would you like to expand a little on your assertion?

      Delete
    3. In 20+ years i'm aware of 3 instances. One relationship developed between client and supervising PO, was declared at earliest opportunity, was well managed and all turned out fine. The other two were undeclared liaisons which festered and became toxic in many respects. If I remember correctly one PO was "allowed" to resign (this involved some serious breaches of confidentiality), the other given a warning.

      Oh, & I'm not anon09:32.

      Delete
    4. In 33 years aware of 2 such relationships.

      Delete
    5. Aware of one relationship about 35 years ago.Was known to management at the time and openly dealt with.Perhaps anon 9.32 is the same person who alleged yesterday thst POs lied to the police?

      Delete
    6. I am an experienced PO many years in and can not think of a single example but know of 3 off the top of my head with mentors/volunteers.

      Delete
    7. I am 9.32 and no I have never alleged that probation staff have ever lied to police. Why would I? I do know of 8 relationships between probation officers and offenders though over 30 years. I think that counts as numerous?

      Delete
    8. It depends on the context. If you've only worked in one office in a small town over 30 years, then I'd agree that's numerous. But if you've had several office moves within a city like Manchester, Birmingham or London, then around three such relationships per decade doesn't sound like all that many, compared to the number of colleagues you might have got to know during this time.

      Delete
    9. I am the anon from yesterday who made the comment about the police but this is my first comment on todays blog. My point is good and bad practice happen everywhere, we deal with complex human emotions and people make mistakes irrespective of what organisation has trained them. I work for an organisation that trains volunteer mentors and prepares them for manipulation. However, probation so keen to act all superior that they truly believe they are the only organisation that can possibly understand how offenders behave. I worked in partnership with a probation team for years but my understanding of how people use manipulation techniques was developed elsewhere. There shouldn't be an expectation that anyone else other than probation will have "the wool pulled over their eyes". Its about the quality of the recruitment and training and VCSE's can and often do get it right. We shouldn't all be judged on a handful of mistakes by small organisations.

      Delete
    10. I think your point is valid. For me it is about the quality of recruitment and training, and as you say, mistakes happen everywhere.
      But my main concern with TR and mentoring is that like everything else that goes from public to private, I fear cost cutting and squeezing profit margins, will reduce the quality of recruitment and training by switching from the best thats available to the cheapeast thats available.
      That can't be good for society, the client, the mentor or even for orgaisations that deliver training and recruitment at a high level.

      Delete
    11. I worked in Merseyside, Essex, Inner and then Greater London from 1975 to 2003 and knew only of one case, a probation officer who resigned and went to work for Social Services.

      There was a woman officer in North Wales who was convicted of supplying cannabis to a prisoner in 1970s or maybe early 80s - I think that a personal relationship may have been involved but do not remember the name of the person concerned. I think intimate relationships between probation workers and clients are almost as rare as hens teeth.

      Delete
    12. I have to say that I'm not really sure that discussing wheather inappropriate relationships are more likely to occur more frequently in the private sector or the public sector advances the struggle against TR very far at all.
      Infact IMHO it's all begining to sound just a tad sleazy.

      Delete
  5. whoever gets this contract is buying a poisoned chalice. A de-motivated, fragmented workforce, what must be the worst, most costly IT systems in the UK, a clientele group that are erratic and have minds of their own as to whether they will or not comply with statutory agencies. CRC companies are the ones where the SFOs will come from and this is a fact, the high-risk cases are already being controlled and monitored.

    I would also point out that Aitken/Grayling focus a lot of their attention of mentors linking clients up with practical help but these are only two out of twelve criminogenic needs offenders have. Mentors will not be trained to use motivational interviewing techniques that take months/years of practice to hone and can be used to help clients address emotional well-being, thinking and behaviour and attitudes - I would say there would be few mentors that could effectively help offenders in this way and so i'm left scratching my head at not only where all of these mentors will come from but how they will be equipped to help. Another probation toolkit is pro-social modelling - how many mentors, if not being paid, will adhere to this - stability is key to clients engaging and most probation staff will agree that if you've got an irregular staff base then engagement will most certainly go out of the window and result in some re-offending.

    This split and sell-off is not going to work I can guarantee it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Other aspects linked to use of mentors and volunteers. Think about their personal safety, I know of a number of occasions where volunteers have needed to be 'relocated' or have stopped volunteering because of fear for their personal safety. Further, I know that police have major concerns regarding probation using peer mentors I can think of a recent incident which found that a peer mentor had over heard probation and police discussing a case, it was later found out by the police that the peer mentor had been passing info onto the offender being discussed. This lead to the PO being threatened by the offender and seeing their car being maliciously damaged on 4 occasions, most worryingly once being outside their home. So the need to use the valuable resource that volunteers and peer mentors can bring to probation work is beneficial, bug has previous oats indicate , they needs to be a high level of supervision, guidance, support, encouragement and monitoring of their activities. Plus volunteers usually find paid work relatively quickly and if you get 6 months from a volunteer or learning mentor before they move on, then you are doing well. Most volunteers do the free work to enhance their CV not to make a career out if working fir nothing. When grayling and aitken's raise the issue of working for norhing let's get the debate in the real world of probation and highlight the coalition risking public safety and the safety of volunteers and mentors as well as probation staff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - the health warnings should not just be for the bidders, but for anyone who sees this as an opportunity for their own career progression too. There was a tweet from @PoOfficer several weeks ago where s/he reported that a mentor had told them "I could do your job" - well, under the Grayling brave new world, you'll be expected to. No more selected, interesting tasks with the back-up of a trained and experienced probation officer - you'll be doing it on the cheap.

      Delete
    2. How long before private companies with TR contracts are using the workfare programmes that provide free and compulsory labour?
      I don't say this tounge in cheek either. People leaving university with a socially orientated degree for example and having to sign on may be viewed as suitable to be placed with a private company with a TR contract.
      After all its likely to be the same companies with contracts for TR as well as the DWP, and provide 'outcomes' at both ends of the tunnel.

      Delete
    3. It won't be long. Many of the primes have grubby fingers in the workfare pie too.

      Delete
  7. Sent by email:-

    Hi Jim. Great blog mate. Just chipping in. For my mind Aitken and the Gov are completely off the scale if they think they will get all those volunteers doing our job. (I am PO who has been assigned NPS, whatever that will mean!)

    Over the last 12 years I have worked with lots of volunteers and some have been bright intelligent individuals who have an astute understanding of service users needs. Others have struggled without collusion and have tried to play good cop to probation bad cop which is very frustrating to say the least. The common bond that just about every volunteer shared was a desire to become a Probation Officer. That is the main reason why they were doing it. Problem is now, the mentors are seeing what the TR dIsaster looming and are fast becoming disillusioned with their roles as they are seeing the stress caused to probation staff etc. They are then becoming more unreliable, not turning up for meetings and quitting.

    I had one guy who was supposed to be picked up from prison at the gate a few weeks ago by a mentor. The only thing waiting for him was tumble weed. He had to use his 46 quid (from his pocket of course) to get a taxi to his dealers house to score. He was recalled a few days later. There are well meaning individuals who will do the work for free but I think they are few and far between really.

    Please post anon Jim if you use this. Thanks and carry on the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NUT voted for one day strike in June, the new NPS could do the same and close down the courts; just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  9. lets be honest the skills based of a large majority of staff as now been reduced to tapping into oasys with little empathy or communicatins skills , we used to be mentors but alas most staff dont see this as their role as the oasys maual doesnt rxplain it to them , clients needs mentors who will advocate for them

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if clients need mentors to advocate for them, but 'clients needs' raises a great big issue that I haven't seen much discussion about in this debate. (I note Clients and TR on this blog a few days ago).
      But in a TR world, with a tic box PbR system, will the clients needs be much of a consideration?
      There will be statutory needs- housing, employment, management if licence conditions etc, but from which budget will specific individual needs be met?
      I doubt very much the shareholders will chip in for anything but the bare minimum.
      I think its been awhile since clients had 'needs to be addressed', it's just prescribed conditions and supervision.

      Delete
  10. NAPO's shooting boots21 April 2014 at 11:43

    Lets just hope that Chris Grayling did not mean it when he said 'this is how I envisage all Prisons to be run':

    http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2014/04/21/g4s-fined-135000-over-private-prisons/

    Most telling is this quote:

    The reasons for penalties have including not hitting targets on mandatory drug testing, the employment of inmates and the number of prisoner complaints.

    Rehabilitation; you're having a laugh!


    Another open goal NAPO, please get your shooting boots on!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris Grayling's goalkeeper :)21 April 2014 at 11:47

      Hahahahahahaha, at least I stopped that pesky Union from reporting on this!!!

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/g4s-and-serco-face-4million-penalty-over-substandard-accommodation-for-asylum-seekers-9051174.html

      Delete
    2. We covered this a bit ago, but here's a reminder:-

      Asylum seekers are being crammed into overcrowded and substandard accommodation by G4S and Serco, according to a watchdog.
      The companies could have to pay the government between £3m and £4m in rebates for “poor performance”.

      The Home Office outsourced accommodation to the two private companies among others in 2012 as part of spending cuts of £140million over seven years.

      A National Audit Office report found that despite improvements by other contracted firms, Serco and G4S were failing to meet targets of property standards and waiting times.

      Delete
    3. G4S runs both HMP Oakwood, the troubled £150 million jail in Featherstone, South Staffordshire, and HMP Birmingham, in Winson Green.

      Today it emerged that the security firm has been fined a total £135,552.57 for not hitting targets set out in its contracts with the Government to run the prisons.

      The reasons for penalties have including not hitting targets on mandatory drug testing, the employment of inmates and the number of prisoner complaints. The punishments were revealed after a request under the Freedom of Information Act.

      The biggest proportion of the fines was at HMP Birmingham, where the company was made to pay £85,381.93 for not hitting targets over the first three quarters of last year. That was when latest figures were available.

      It was fined a total £50,170.64 for not hitting targets at HMP Oakwood, over the first two quarters of last year.

      Bosses stressed that fines helped ensure good performance and despite the penalties, public safety had not been put at risk in these instances.

      A G4S spokesperson said: “In all prisons (public and private) there will be occasions when elements of the regime are not delivered exactly in accordance with agreed levels.

      “This is normal in custodial settings. Within the prison system all privately-run establishments pay financial penalties if the delivery doesn’t entirely match the contract.

      “While we always strive to deliver all elements in full we accept that we should be penalised if we don’t.”

      A Prison Service spokesman added:

      “We work closely with all private sector providers to ensure that the services provided are of the highest standard and that we are getting the best possible value for taxpayers.”

      Delete
    4. If the cost of paying the penelty is lower then the cost of complying with the contract???

      Delete
  11. Replies
    1. Yeah, and if you say 'gullible' REALLY slowly it sounds like Oranges.

      Delete
  12. They writer of the above story can be contacted on rory.mckeown@dailyecho.co.uk should anyone wish to discuss any other issues in this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. My experience of colleagues having an inappapriate/unadvisable relationship with a client - in excess of 25 years, 1 in the 80's. However, I know someone who works with HMP and the employment of Drug Workers in HMP and the turnover is massive, as the boundaries become blurred resulting in them be asked to leave the prison, leaving their keys on the way out. From my limited experience working in a local jail, I was astonished at the number of teaching staff who also fell foul of the resident group, who, alone side the environment, can be exciting, charming, manipulative, romantic and interesting.

    I am with others who fear for the future for the clients and the volunteers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've noted this story, although not always specific to this particular prison, in several papers over the last week.
    I find it very interesting, and not least of all because it calls the quality of assessment into question some what.
    There is no doubt in my mind that one of the great failings of our present system is computorised electronocally produced assessments. People make decisions based on OASyS and offending behavior course reports. Quite often decisions are made with no actual face to face contact at all.
    I think theres an arguement to be made from reports such as this, that long term knowledge and interaction with offenders makes for a far better quality of risk assessment, management, and decision making, then any assessment churned out electronically.
    I'm also sure that many of these strories that are used to foreward the case for change and the embracement of TR could be turned on their head and used against it.
    There is a probation press office somewhere isn't there?

    http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/News/Figures-add-to-quesitons-over-open-prison-record-20140421104028.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MORE than 1,000 of the country’s most dangerous criminals were moved to open prisons last year.
      The revelation comes as Sudbury Open Prison continues to face questions over the number of inmates who continue to flee from the site.
      A total of 1,242 prisoners serving life in jail, or an indeterminate sentence, were moved in 2013.
      In the past three years, 37 murderers and five rapists have absconded from open prisons, the damning figures revealed.
      Bosses at the Sudbury jail have repeatedly come under fire from politicians in the region as inmates continue to flee on a regular basis.
      In January, the jail was wideley criticised when ten prisoners including an armed robber and an arsonist left the site within the space of six weeks, while convicted murderer Carl Moses, who was serving a life sentence, went on the run last summer.
      Last month, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) announced it was to limit the freedom of criminals in open jails in a bid to cut the number of absconders.
      But since the announcement, criminals have continued to flee from Sudbury.
      Just last week, violent convict Peter Croft, 35, absconded from the prison where he was serving a seven-year sentence for wounding with intent and offensive weapon charges.
      Although welcoming tighter measures, Burton MP Andrew Griffiths believes bosses should rethink the types of criminals that are being moved to open prisons.

      Mr Griffiths said: “If this is happening so regularly, something is clearly going wrong with the type of prisoners they are putting in the open prisons. These prisoners are clearly not ready for the freedom that Sudbury offers.”
      An MOJ spokesman said open prisons played an important role in preparing inmates for when they are released back into the community.
      The spokesman said: “Open prisons perform a range of functions but notably to prepare long-sentenced prisoners for release.
      “It’s right that people who have been in prison a long time are tested in this kind of environment before their eventual release.”


      Delete
  15. "They need to be tested in open conditions first" this is trotted out at every parole hearing. I know of many "Lifers" and IPP sentence prisoners who have walked out of open prison and handed themselves in at the first police station they come across. Open prisons can be mad houses rife with bullying and full of drugs with few staff in control and this was before the cutbacks. Lots of prison are not coping and I do not know what will happen when many Cat C gaols become "Resettlement Prisons" under TR. Its madness there is a significant spike in the suicide rate and mark my words there will be riots soon and I fear for the staff. But that's okay because there is money to be made and political careers to develop. Grayling is a psychopath he doesn't give a toss for the people whose lives he's putting at risk. Offender Supervisors spend most of their time filling stupid OASys documents rather that building relationships with the men and women they supervise. OASys needs to be killed off it has never been fit for purpose and whilst they are at it, how can some of the accredited programmes continue with their low success rates

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You get my vote on that one.

      Delete
  16. I have posted in the past about my concerns regarding the Parole Board and prison based staff failing to pay due heed to the assessment of the professional who will manage the client on the outside ie the PO. Two recent oral hearing resulted in one man being released straight from closed and one being progressed to open against my very carefully considered assessment. Result after two months one recall and after one week in open the man was returned to closed as significant abscond risk with the governor commenting in the risk meeting that he had behaved exactly as the OM ( me ) had predicted in the PAROM. Both had very positive assessments made by prison based psychologists ( different establishments) with no experience of managing licences in the community. Given this is happening at the time of the Great TR Disaster no-one is joining the dots to see the massive parcel of multiple failings coming together - surely a definition of DISASTER if ever I saw one!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Have just read Joe Kuipers blog with great interest - has anyone else picked up a sense of inducements to senior staff and the primes to stay in the game.....FOI request me thinks.....and the payment to Trust Board members ?? Certainly my board 'up north' deserve nothing.... as they did nothing....

    ReplyDelete
  18. No wonder some of the Trust Chairs have been keeping a low profile on twitter.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here is another VERY important point about volunteers. They are just that...volunteers. The army are struggling to recruit enough Territorials and even when they get them, many fail to attend regular training sessions. Police specials also turn out when they think they will ( I'm speaking from experience thought there are a few exceptions) and my experience with volunteers in probation is the odd ones can be relied but others? Fair weather attendees I'm afraid. No consistency. The govt cannot be blind to this. Offenders needs consistency and someone to turn up when they say they will. Volunteers can be got and miss. fact.

    ReplyDelete