Friday 18 July 2014

Tagging Special

I wonder what the supervision of the under 12 month cohort will look like. A while ago now I thought I read somewhere that it won't necessarily be supervision like it is now and that recall won't work in the same way either. I wonder if everyone will be put on a tracker and that'll be it? Does anyone have any links to literature on this?

*****
I think they threw away the original fag packet that the plans were originally worked out on.

*****
Your faith in the rigour of the system is admirable, and to be commended, but I fear it is misplaced. Literature? Highly, highly unlikely. Grayling's attitude requires no evidence, he goes with his gut. Frankly we need to stop attributing honourable motives to these people. They have none. It is all balance sheets and bonuses for directors and those on the various levels of the payroll. PS-MoJ, we know you track this blog. Some of us, as you can see, see right through you ;)

******
It begs the question as to WHEN the short custodial sentences will be allocated to (mainly) CRC. If they are at sentence stage, then it will be impossible, and I stress that word, to visit and assess each and every client. What is likely to happen is that those doing less than 6-8 weeks will be given a discharge appointment to see their OM, many of whom will FTA. So then we are back to breaching/recalling them, adding costs and time to the process, costs and time to the Court process, cost and time to the recall section, cost and time to the Police who have to look for them. Now I cannot see how this is going to be effective!!

And, if this was not bad enough, we all know that when many people decide to go AWOL as there is a warrant out for them, they just stop signing on. Sooooooo where will they get any money from?

Bingo. They'll likely rob it. So crime goes up.

So we now have an increase in cost, time, effort and crime. And that's before we get to the impact on the CRC.


*****
Oh, and I've also used the Buddi tags. They are quite good at keeping an eye on your customers...right up until the point that they cut it off. And throw it away.

So now they have charges of Criminal Damage and compensation for the lost tag, which will be taken from benefits (after 3 months to set it up) leaving them short of money and then they go out to steal. If ever there was a 'thing' which personified 'Omnishambles' then TR is it.

Sit back, do the bare minimum and nothing else and just watch the whole fucking thing explode....just remember to keep your head down in case of shrapnel!!!


*****
I was involved in the IOM/PPO pilot for satellite tagging and unless there has been a massive change in the technology in 3 months you still need a house to plug the beacon into and a power supply to keep it charged. It is also massively intensive manpower-wise as it requires a lot of work to cross match offences with peoples locations if it is going to be used for investigation/enforcement purposes.

*****
Yeah, the battery (which was half the size of a house brick) needed charging each night and the offender was plugged into the mains for 6 hours as the tag remained on his leg with a power cord stretching to the plug. At least I knew where he was, maybe this is what they are alluding to :) Oh, and who will pay for the additional electricity as I know many of mine were on a pre-paid meters?

******
Most of my current caseload have been on one of these trackers at one time or another over the past 12 months (the police pay, I'm in IOM). I agree with what everyone else is saying - there just isn't the manpower to keep an eye on their whereabouts every minute of the day and that's with only a small percentage of offenders having a tracker. Also, when they disengage and want to do a runner they just cut it off. They have their advantages don't get me wrong but they are in no way a panacea and would be pointless for most people.

*****
OMG, can you imagine the breach process...and the extra business through the magistrates court where incidentally Grayling want recalls reviewed rather than via parole board, the latter being too busy because of the increase in oral hearings as a result of the recent supreme court decision, which in turn will require more attendees from probation and prison staff which in turn will leave probation office/prison staffing levels reduced when TR has already caused massive disruption to staffing cover and workflow....isn't it going swimmingly Mr Grayling?

*****
The whole operating model for TR is based on ignorance, erroneous assumptions and a lack of informed and consequential thinking. This also applies to Grayling's prison policy. It is a time-bomb that is going to go off any time. A tragedy is inevitable and prisoners are already dying. How much evidence is enough?

*****
Grayling is like Teflon, nothing sticks, and he gets away with what ever he chooses to do everyday. TR is shyte and he is an arsehole and it looks like we have to live with it. It doesn't seem to matter how many prisoners die, what riots and upheavals are going on in the CJA, he's still around and no one can seem to override the mess he is making. He has got a free hand to do what ever he likes and at what ever expense. Someone higher than him must be supporting his plans for him to carry on recklessly.

******
Quote from a CRC CEO:- 

"MoJ have told all prime bidding contractors to relax on through the gate under 12 month plans as they will specify something that will roll out in April!"


Unlike the MoJ, the Scottish Government have conducted a widespread consultation exercise on the use of tagging and handily published an extensive briefing document. Of particular interest are the following reservations identified for the new GPS system:-

In considering any possible uses we need to be mindful of what the technology limits are. For example:
GPS usually works in most domestic homes, but may not work inside all buildings,
GPS usually works while travelling in cars, however may not work on trains,
GPS drift (movement in accuracy of signal) might occur when static for long periods of time and near water,
GPS accuracy is affected by nearby tall buildings and does not work underground, however,
GSM Location Based Services (LBS) can be used to fill in where a GPS signal is unobtainable.

A perceived weakness of GPS is that it generates masses of data which can be difficult to interpret. However, that perception may in part come from those unfamiliar with electronic monitoring systems more generally as the level of data generated in essence is not all that dissimilar to the current data generated. In practice, there is the option to have secure Web Based access to the information so that service professionals could access the information themselves remotely, so for example an appropriately trained probation officer could access an immediate update on an offender's location if that would be beneficial. Alternatively, the monitoring company could "package" the information and communicate it on to the relevant parties in a way that is easily interpreted, such as a report.

The presentation of the locational information on the map allows the location of the tag to be seen over any date range and allows for multiple inclusion and exclusion zones. These zones can be of a number of different shapes (circles, rectangle, polygons etc.) any size, to different time schedules and with or without buffer zones (buffer zones are areas that are set just outside an exclusion zone to which entry generates an early alert to possible boundary encroachment). So, you could be excluded from a specific space (for example, a football stadium on a Saturday), or excluded from any building (such as a public house on a Sunday), depending on the order or licence requirement.

Exclusion zone set of irregular shape, with buffer zone
Exclusion zone set of irregular shape, with buffer zone

There are no absolutes about accuracy or performance of any GPS device. However we can reliably say what the likely accuracy of any one "fix" is within a particular range. (A fix is where the GPS system locates the tag in a particular place at a particular time). Depending on the strength of signals to the nearest satellites a fix might be accurate to 2-5 meters, 5-10 meters, 10-20 meters etc. "No absolutes about accuracy" does not mean the data can't be used it just means that whoever is using it needs to understand the difference between fixes that are accurate to 2 meters as compared to entries that are accurate to 20 meters. Additional assurance can be gathered from multiple fixes. So, if an offender has generated 20 fixes or data points at regular intervals on a map within 5 minutes, while any one point may be subject to drift, nineteen others all showing an offender proceeding in a certain direction gives you a great deal more certainty about the result showing his or her movements. The possibility of drift though means that GPS has some limitations as to how well it can be used to enforce a boundary. This is a major point to consider in thinking about possible uses of GPS. Any monitoring system that uses GPS therefore needs to make sure that the correct evidential weight is given to GPSinformation obtained.

For example, an individual skirting around the edge of a restriction boundary may be shown as encroaching on the boundary as a result of drift. This can be dealt with by way of buffer zones set up electronically around boundaries so that an entry into a buffer zone generates an early warning about a possible boundary encroachment. Similarly as outlined above, multiple data points would help eliminate the possibility that any one "fix" was as a result of drift. Furthermore, by using a combination of RF and GPS, you can use RF to monitor an offender curfewed to their home during the night and GPS to track their whereabouts out-with that location during the day. The RF will give you a more certain curfew to the boundary of their house.

Illustration demonstrating each GPS data display will have a measurable level of accuracy
Illustration showing how GPS data displays on a map and demonstrating that each of these dots will have a measurable level of accuracy - making correct interpretation of the data very important.

While advances to battery technology have increased in recent years, GPS can be very draining on batteries and battery life depends on the frequency with which the system provides updates on locations (every 10 seconds, every 30 seconds, every minute etc.). The battery recharges from flat in 1.5 hours or for up to 1 hour every day. In practice, the tag would need to be charged daily. The development of an "on body" charger means this now becomes an easier task to perform whilst at the home address. As a consequence, the tag does not need to be "plugged in" or removed in order to charge it. Instead the "charger" is charged and then clipped over the tag to pass on the charge while the offender can move around within their property during this process. If in the course of ordinary operation the charge is low then the tag vibrates to give a low battery alert. The tag uses assisted GPS in order to get a faster initial locational fix and it contains sufficient memory to store over 1 week of data. Battery life can be remotely checked by the monitoring company.

It is important to note that charging equipment will involve the cooperation of the tagged individual. Therefore any GPS system without incentives to charge the equipment or sanctions for not charging the equipment would seem likely to encounter a high degree of non-compliance as a result of non-charging of equipment. This is a difference from the way the current RF system operates where there is less of an active role for the offender in maintaining the operation of the monitoring equipment.

Just as a reminder, here's a thorough report prepared by Napo in 2012 detailing just how crap the present system is.

24 comments:

  1. In our iom team we have been told time and time again that we can't use data from trackers as evidence in court or evidence for breach of licence. I think precisely because it's not accurate enough. Why are the government spending so much money on something that just isn't that good yet whilst getting rid of what we know works well? I said at the beginning of all this that probation didn't listen when MOJ tried to make us propose more curfews. So they changed legislation to make sure every community sentence had an element of punishment but we still didn't propose more curfews. So they gave us training on cost effectiveness of orders proposed and told us that curfews were at no cost to Probation Trusts so we should use them, but we didn't. So they got rid of Trusts and will (I assume) now find a way of making sure people have tags or trackers. Why? I would have thought it would have been their private company mates pulling the strings but not long ago Buddi pulled out saying what MOJ want can't be done. G4S are no longer monitoring curfews so who is pulling the strings and why?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Whether you can use it as evidence or not is unclear. I know of a case i managed being charged with a nasty criminal damage (probably should have been threatening behaviour too). The original idea was to focus resources to gather other evidence and to actually remove people from investigations.

    I am not surprised they have backed off under 12 month stuff. Like pbr it was only ever a trojan horse to facilitate privatisation. They really are a tawdry bunch this govt.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim,
    This blog is hitting the mark now day after day. As you say, if nothing else it is a record of the absolute mess Grayling is responsible for. Has there been any attempt to close you down or undermine you? I'm just curious because I'm thinking how long can the people responsible for this shambles just ignore the effects of their actions on the service we are supposed to be providing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure Ian Lawrence would love to see it closed down and me drummed out of the union. Quite ironic that, don't you think?

      Delete
    2. but what about MOJ? I can not see them tolerating this much longer can you? Especially NPS staff and the Official Secrets Act...

      Delete
    3. Bring it on - lets have a big row!

      Delete
    4. Why would Ian Lawrence want to see you drummed out of the union ? What's the post your responding to got to do with Ian Lawrence.?. Strange ........

      Delete
    5. There's been a few - but this is the latest:-

      http://probationmatters.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/napo-radio-silence.html

      Delete
    6. Can't access that link. Is there's something personal between you two??

      Delete
  4. Off topic but we were told today that London prisons are locking out so prisoners from courts will be sent down the line to any local with spaces even though they are already bursting at the seams. Staff are being sent on detached duty round the country leaving their own prisons even more understaffed than they already are. Former staff are being approached as reserves and there is talk of reopening prisons recently closed down. Prisons are like probation, invisible to most people which is why there isn't the outcry at the shameful incompetence and waste of money of this arrogant government who are determined to destroy every public service they can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have posted that on the 'Know the Danger' Facebook page, I expect some of their readers will have info as well.

      https://www.facebook.com/Knowthedangeruk/posts/10152252693541527

      Also I have read Pat Waterman was re-elected Napo Greater London Branch Chair this afternoon.

      One Tweeter estimated about an attendance of 120 out of a possible 1300(approximately) Ian Lawrence spoke - so hopefully there will be some feedback in the coming days

      Delete
  5. More demoralising of the experienced CRC staff, today at our office 2 newly qualified officers got contracts with NPS, one has had 2 previous interviews and didn't get through and the other has been on the trainee course twice. We didn't even know that there was any vacancies, so much for the "most experienced staff going to NPS", they now have newly qualified staff that have never held a high risk case load. Its absolutely disgusting how CRC staff are continuing to be made to feel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree, breaches rejected by NPS staff who then refuse to discuss because you are CRC staff. Made to feel like second class Probation Officers who are no longer capable of doing their job!

      Delete
    2. Refusing to discuss a rejected breach is taking even this insanity a step too far. Raise it as an issue. As an NPS court officer I would be furious If I worked with that kind of attitude around me and would not tolerate it.

      Delete
    3. NPS jobs are widely available on NOMS system ( i grasp (!)) , only available to other NPS people although CRC can apply but only for a secondment!!
      Agreed Framework recently added to EPIC for CRC/NPS
      secondments (agreed by NNC).
      It seems only NPS can only apply for other posts (NOMS/MOJ/Civil Service) as secondees, not permanently which gives the lie to the Civil Service position - second rate in so many ways and discriminated against. Please, I don't want to create any division - for information only.....

      On another matter , I understand the contract of the departing chiefs of Trusts will finish at this month end .....wonder if we will get anything from inside the tent ?

      Delete
  6. Totally agree. I think any po vacancies in s should be ting fenced to Crc po staff. I am advised vacancies have to be opened up to civil service but...prison officers jobs are ring fenced because of skills set so why not po?...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Breaches rejected by CRC which then leads to further delay increases risk. Recent case were DV client was breached on grounds that he failed to attend his appointment. Enforcement action was timely. Order was returned to court but because a home visit was not conducted a decision was taken to withdraw the breach, few days before his Court appearance. A home visit was conducted where he lived alone in his flat. There was no response. A further appointment was offered and when he failed to attend a fresh set of breach papers prepared and sent into court. By now there has been a delay of several weeks before he last attended the office. Before the next court hearing the offender stabbed his partner and charged with section 18 wounding. This could well have been an SFO case. Guess who would have been conveniently blamed, not the fucking senior managers who are implementing this pile of shit system. Not the breach officers in court, who is being instructed to carry out their work by the fucking manager. The blame was squarely put on the CRC PO. Why, because one fucking home visit was not done. We could have protected this victim if the breach was allowed to continue, given that his index offence was DV. Maybe his court appearance at breach court could have shaken him up and he realises that he needs to get his act together. Maybe he might not have attended court at all in which case a warrant would have been issued and the police would have been looking for him. Is anyone going to tell the victim that maybe if we prosecuted him at the first point this could have been avoided. No. The fact is that our actions failed this women and as a consequence she was subject to a serious assault which almost cost her life. How can management sleep knowing that TR is increasing risk? They can because they don’t give a shit about you or me. They don’t give a shit about the victims. The only thing they care about is their own sense of power and covering their own backs. That’s the fucking reality of what we have to work in.

    I don’t apologies one single bit if my language is offensive and I have caused offence. I am offended by TR and offended by the way the procedures are failing victims.

    And if you asking why I'm anonymous, then fucking guess why... in case I get bullied for exposing the dangerous practices which are occurring in the name of TR.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Breaches rejected by CRC" - meant to say 'breaches done by CRC & rejected by NPS'.

    That's how much pissed off I am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would not have rejected your breach and have never in long servicecome across or used such a feeble excuse for not proceeding with a wholly appropriate course of action in timely manner with view to enforcing order of the court and protecting knien victim. I agree with everything your have said, I empathise with your anger and frustration that your work has been obstructed by nonsensical decision making leading to as you rightly say, potentially avoidable harm...

      Delete
  9. Someone should take Grayling to court for the way they he has discriminated against CRC staff. And why are NPS staff treating CRC PO's in this way, we are the same colleagues that they worked with and are still doing so. How dare they assume themselves better. Fuck I am a civil servant and secrets acts its a load of bull to inflate their egos and play into Graylings TR, more fool them for buying into it. Wait till the 50 thousand extra parole reports come in I suppose we will be good enough to help them out then.

    I am sure there must be a case for discrimination all the shtye about CRC can't apply and them just giving jobs out willy nilly to staff from abroad, newly qualified staff and agency staff. I thought all jobs had to be advertised and everyone given a level playing field. Also CRC staff should not have to apply for their own jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Talk about discrimination, we have staff members who had low caseloads at time of split because of recovering from operation, recently diagnosed with serious illness, or returned from maternity leave. Yes they could have appealed and yes they would have won but they didn't, each for their own individual reasons. My point is that Trusts knew this discrimination was going on and did nothing to stop it. Fucking disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I don't know a single maternity leave returner who got NPS in my trust. All CRC. Even ones doing court and MAPPA cases.

      Delete
  11. Grayling has forced the split of probation. Please not let us argue with our colleagues. The government has divided us but if we want to we can stick together. I am with nps but I have never felt better than my colleagues in crc. The majority of us were not allowed to choose. We must be better than this. Strength and courage to us all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely. Grayling may believe that some are more equal than others but we must not get sucked into that small minded way of thinking.

      Delete