I went to my (new) GP today and he asked me the domestic violence question. I could have hugged him. GP's are often the first agency that victims of domestic violence have contact with, and by most accounts, the awareness and ability to respond to domestic violence risk indicators on the part of health professionals is at best variable.
Last week I discussed my high concerns about domestic violence cases within the TR project with my MP. He came up with the stock response that where risk is indicated as increasing, cases will be referred to NPS. There will, potentially, be no one equipped to spot the indication. In an effort to demonstrate the need for properly trained and supported professionals to be in place in the CRC, I told him this:
Imagine a woman meets up with another woman on the high street.
One shows the other the delicious shoes and handbag she has just purchased and then says “Don't tell my husband! He'd go nuts! You know how it is, hahaha.”
The “DV question” in this instance is “I don’t know, actually, how is it?” Because I have had DV awareness drummed into me for over a decade now, and have worked in this field for a good while, that response is second nature. And that is why I know that a sizeable proportion of my women friends and acquaintances are victims and survivors of domestic abuse. And why - when she tells me “what it's like” I know how to advise her in a way which is supportive, but also keeps her safer.Two things with regard to this really bother me about Grayling's TR project. One is an act of destruction, and one is a squandered opportunity, and both will add to the sum of human suffering and inter-generational misery, (plus significant cost to the public purse) attributable to DV.
Splintering Probation into NPS (High risk) and CRCs (Low to medium) is an act of destruction, and coupled with the longstanding downgrading of the majority of DV cases to “medium” or “low” risk, puts victims including children, at increased risk of harm. Beverley Gilbert gives a well argued account of this in “Public Protection? The Implications of Grayling's 'Transforming Rehabilitation' Agenda on the Safety of Women and Children” British Journal of Community Justice Vol 11 (2-3) 123-134.
I have previously described this fault line in risk assessment as “an act of institutional sexism on a par with the institutional racism identified in the Macpherson report.” The ability - or even intention - of the profit-oriented cost-shy new providers of probation services to train and support staff in effective risk assessment in domestic violence cases, and to engage in the often complex multi-agency risk management work must be in serious doubt.
Even in this transitional stage staff bringing with them the legacy of knowledge and expertise into the CRCs will be impeded by new additional referral processes and technical (IT) barriers to accessing information. Without compulsion on new providers to support and properly train their staff, the situation is perilous.
With the entire probation establishment tying itself in knots trying to make the unworkable work, that is, desperately trying to maintain what it was delivering satisfactorily (in fact “excellently” according to independent assessment) before Grayling waded in, there is now a tragic missed opportunity.
What I have discussed above is the issue of male to female domestic violence. The need to push forward on theory and practice to address abuse within LGBT relationships, and abuse perpetrated by females on men in heterosexual relationships, is overdue. This is a difficult and challenging conversation, in my experience, speaking as one whose comfort zone is squarely within the feminist/Duluth tradition, but it is also fascinating and urgently needed. Probation, with its distinguished but now rapidly eroding tradition of academic and practice interface, should have been at the front of and driving this development.
So: an act of destruction, leading on to a missed opportunity. The issue of Domestic Violence (and the implications for victims including children) within “Transforming Rehabilitation” is justification enough for an immediate pause in the headlong race to push through the share sale.
There isn't a Council or a political party that doesn't put Domestic Violence high on its list of priorities. Mouthing that it IS a priority does not wash unless this is backed up by some actions and some stern demands on Mr Grayling.
Leaders, Decision Makers, Civil Servants need to say very clearly and very loudly that TR is NOT SAFE. They should say specifically that TR fails against diversity and equality benchmarks with reference to victims of domestic abuse. They should say specifically that TR fails against benchmarks with reference to any and every government “priority” with regard to domestic abuse. They should say that in this respect alone TR will put vulnerable people at risk of harm, and this government at risk of disgrace and embarrassment, and should therefore at the very least be reviewed, and reviewed urgently.
Su McConnel
I'm a PO in a CRC and the domestic abuse cases are the segment of our new caseload that worry me the most. In my experience these cases often have little involvement from other agencies - unless there are children involved, and sometimes not even then - and I'm left trying to hold the risk myself. Su's description of institutional sexism definitely rings true for me.
ReplyDeleteOften the difference between whether someone poses a high or medium risk of serious harm is merely down to whether or not they have access to their victim. Unless we can follow them around 24 hours a day we'll never really know that (hey, perhaps we can get the victims GPS tagged too, under Failing Grayling's brave new world?)
I too have significant concerns about Domestic Abuse and how this is being addressed post TR split of staff and cases. My concern is that practice appears to be changing without any considered thought or assessment just as a "pragmatic" response by managers to resource issues.
ReplyDeleteLet's start at the beginning with NPS based court staff. In my area all DV reports were done by POs as full PSRs ( I am using this terms deliberately) due to the serious nature of domestic abuse. Then it was changed and POs would write reports on their existing cases with the rest ( and vast majority) being written by court team staff as FDRs. Now, anyone who knows the format will be aware that a SARA assessment can only be completed when a full PSR pulled through from OASys, because the SARA tool is now incorporated in OASys. No paper version exists so practice has changed of necessity (?) and most DV cases no longer have SARA's completed at report stage. Now, comes the point - if you are recommending a DV programme ( Building Better Relationships) as part of the sentence, selection criteria includes a medium score on SARA ( which is now not being completed for most reports). It is beyond comprehension that suddenly this is being dropped because the paperwork does not fit.
A further point is who within the court team writes the DV reports? Previously they were PO grade staff now PSO grade staff are being asked to do this. Whilst not wishing to divert this to a grade boundary issue, it is the PSO grade staff who have objected and the POs who are supporting them.
So, given NPS ( we are dealing with court staff here) is supposed now to be one organisation now, is this replicated nationally? My own research indicates NPS court teams and areas are doing this differently - perhaps others reading this could contribute their views?
I am really concerned that the idea that we just get on and make this work is throwing established research based practice to the wind.
Then we look at the case management of DV perpetrators. How many DV cases had change of officers as a result of TR? How many practitioners in the chaos of the split remembered to notify the Women's Safety Worker of the change of officer so they know who to liaise with ( vital in protecting the victim)? How much DV intervention delivery was disrupted with the service user by the TR split? How on earth are managers keeping track of this and ensuring consistent practice?
My information indicates that most DV cases are held by CRC and are being allocated by the RSR and CA tools to CRC. I want to stress that many CRC staff in our area are the most competent officers we have but what do they do when risk, always volatile with DV cases in my experience, escalates? I believe this is where the greatest vulnerability exists in the TR system, the risk escalation process is the most unresponsive and unfit for purpose process I have seen in all of my working life.
In all of this we have victims, service users, our partnership colleagues ( essential in DV cases imo) and staff caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare and differential application of processes. IT IS SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH AND MARK MY WORDS YOU WILL BE READING ABOUT THESE ISSUES IN SFO INVESTIGATION REPORTS.
Completely agree with the above. Word of warning to those who are offended by comments that PSOs shouldn't be complering DV and child protection work in CRC. In my area the grade boundaries have been very distinct. This has been to ensure that those who are paid and qualifified to do so take on he greater level,of responsibility. This is NOT offensive towards PSO grades. This is the situation in any organisation. The greater level of responsibility usual, attracts the higher grade title and wage. I dont doubt I could do majority of my team managers job but I dont get paid to have that level of responsibility so im not sure why I would be offended when the team manager does not want his role erroded. Which brings me onto my next point. Why do you think in my area that job descriptions are changing and there is an emergence of PO with added value?? POs are going to be given more managerial taks to perform to justify their wages. If I was a business I wouldnt pay a PO wage , when, as many on here are advocating, PSOS can complete DV and child protection work at a cheaper rate. What is then left to differentiate a PO and PSo??? It used to be PSRs, sex offender work, high risk of harm work. Hmmm, what seems to be wrong with this picture. Im glad our area has always being strict on role boundaries but now fear as the bidding area gets bigger and we will be clumped in with areass with a less strict boundary that they will adopt the idea that PSOs can do all the work that comes CRC way. Some peoples naivety at how business will work in the new work is breathtaking. If you want to cary on with a greater blurring of boundaries for fear of offending PSO grades then crack on but this will do you no good when you are trying to justify your position in an organisation.
Delete0931 you are so right. Im sick of the attitude "just cos im a PSO doesnt mean I cant do ....." well actually it does! Grades are there for a reason.
DeleteThose PSO's who feel confident, they can do it, go get a qualification - simples. The manner in which the service(s) are travelling, buy into the notion that it is all common sense, well, actually, no, it isn't.
DeleteIs it simple to go and get a qualification at present?? When they arnt even offering the chance to complete 1
DeleteSince I have been shafted into the CRC, I have never worked so hard due to having a 90% caseload of DV cases, it is impossible to do all the work with each case that I am supposed to do due to the shear volume of cases. Prior to the split we probably had about 10 DV cases each. Also should child protection cases not be managed by NPS. When I trained 30 years ago our first and most priority was child protection. Running around like a headless chicken is going to cause a lot of mistakes and last minute fire fighting and maybe cost to human life's. THE RISK TO THE PUBLIC IS MORE APPARANT NOW THEN IT HAS EVER BEEN.
ReplyDeleteThrow in the mix that there isn't much of a future for qualified POs in the delivery of DV perpetrator programmes...
ReplyDeleteI have a longstanding gripe about how the CPS deal with Domestic Abuse. For many years now, the seriousness of cases have been sacrificed to needs of procedural and time constraints - how many section 20's have you seen converted to a convenient section 39? How many 'Basis of Pleas' attached to some horrendous offences, artificially downgraded to speed up the process and reduce the number of Not Guilty pleas to contend with? It's nothing short of disgraceful; the legal arm of the state effectively appeasing abusers, so as to keep costs down. The effect of this means many offences remain in Magistrates Courts, where the penalties are oftimes incompatible with the harm done and the risk posed. I tend to base my reports on the evidence, and the presentation of the perpetrator, as opposed to the constraints of the sentences available. Why not, it is not my job to undermine the victim, for financial and procedural efficiency.
ReplyDeleteAs for TR - another kick in the teeth for victims - no pun intended.
First I would like to say in my area we have also seen a decline in the quality of reportd prepared for court. This is because court pso are writing majority of them. These have been staff who have been in court for years who have never even held case loads let alone written reports. Im sorry but their inexperience shines through and the amount of poor assessments and inappropriate proposals is embarrassing quite frankly. The problem with the split is you dont necessarily have the right person for the job.
ReplyDelete100% right the split does not have the right people for the right job. I have noticed in Manchester in our office 3 newly qualified officers are in NPS, they should be on protected caseloads, they are refusing to take lifers, sex offenders, holding a small case load, had only written about 10 PSR's and perhaps 1 Parole report during their training, then you have highly experienced officers that have 25 years plus service that have been shafted into CRC. ITS ALL WRONG and giving the NPS a right headache which higher managers are refusing to see. And no one from CRC are rushing to apply for the NPS posts and rightly so for the way we have been treated, they have had to re-advertise. THE TRAIN CRASH HAS ALREADY HAPPENED IN MANCHESTER, WE ARE JUST PICKING UP THE SCRAPS.
DeleteSome really sound comments today highlighting major flaws in the split. With risk escalation particularly with DV actually serves to increase risks further. Take my office for example. One case of dv where we received info to indicate risk had increased to high. As it would have been obvioud that the info came from his partner the decision was made not to transfer the case to nps as he only had a couple of months left on his order. If we had started risk escalation process this would have alerted him and put his partner at even greater risk. This was at the time of being just in process of transfer of cases between nps and crc so could be facilitated. Major concerns if this happened now as no option to keep case within CRC. Second example was similar but resulted in staff member being seriously threatened and procedures put in place ro protect them becaduse of risk escalation sn andd transfer to NPS.. Now we have all had situations where risk has increased and had to disclose this to the service user but there seemef to be something more symbolic to the service user by having to be transfered to the office which is now becoming to be known as the ' NONCE AND NUTTER' office by the service users. so much for managing risk more effectively!!
ReplyDeleteLet us be clear. All above is symptomatic of the dumbing down of Probation. As an SPO and 24 year practitioner, I am confronted on a daily basis with decisions that are being taken based on Performance Targets, resourcing or TR 'requirements'. Decades of 'best practice', 'good practice' and 'safe practice' are being eroded by the hour and and the only thing 'defensible' about many of these decisions is 'I was acting under orders' - a long established non-defence. Grayling and his Prison Service amateurs at the MoJ are taking a common sense/Daily Mail readers approach to concepts of practice that are putting staff, offenders and victims at risk. Senior Managers are, I believe, making representations to the MoJ regarding these indefensible changes not because they believe that the MoJ will listen but because they have recognised the need for an audit trail, am means by which CRCs and the NPS can point to a series of documents that evidence that the MoJ were warned. When the bidders take over a create a crisis in community sentence that mirrors that that exists in the prisons, they will NOT be able to say the fault belongs with the providers. The model is flawed; we all know it and we can all see it evey day in the faces of our colleagues. This is worst practice, bad pactice and indefensible practice introduced at the insistence of a Justice Secretary with no comprehension of the nuances of rehabilitation and who surrounds himself with Yes men and women with even less idea. Ursula Brennan is as culpable as Grayling and the failure to turn this TR debacle off will remain their biggest mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that your GP probably isn't asking this question to men attending the surgery, or is he? And on your scenario, why shouldn't a partner be unhappy if the other partner has spent the shopping money or is causing them to go from financial red to black, it doesn't matter which made the purchase or whether the purchase was a pair of shoes or a beard trimmer, and either would be anxious on the way home if this were to be the case.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with DV is that this country has moved from a place where we pretended DV didn't exist, to acting as if all men are perpetrators, and that even the slightest situation in any intimate relationship is now labelled as DV and with a shocking default position of the man as the perpetrator. Likewise the blog post is one sided as are probation and justice interventions that are generally focused on "the men".
In many cases men are the perpetrators, but there are many other instances where we read DV case summaries when there was conflict from both sides but only the male sits was arrested. Men are victims too, I have been a victim of of it and my GP, the police, my probation employer, were not interested in what I had to say, and I'm sure they would of had I been a woman. I was in fact supported by a few women colleagues that had been victims of DV themselves, and they understood the above.
I'd like to know why does the blog author think DV cases have been "downgraded"? There is no evidence that all DV offenders should be assessed as high risk of harm offenders, and I think it wrong there have been previous practices where all were put at high risk because this was the policy. Where is the expertise of the assessor in that?, because it is the risk factors and circumstances that should inform risk classification and not a blanket policy or knee jerk reaction. Is there still a relationship? Are they intending to return to the home? We're children present?, Do they have children?, is there existence of previous police call outs or DV offences?, Is there, or is there to be an injunction or restraining order?, Are social services involved?, What are the accounts of victim and perpetrator?, Is their denial?, What image the injuries or harm?, the list goes on and these are the question we ask ourselves which inform risk classification.
To assess someone as a high risk of serious harm means there are indicators/evidence that serious risk of harm could happen at any time AND from which recovery is difficult or impossible. Some undoubtedly meet this criteria based on their circumstances and offending history, but some do not and are rightly assessed as a medium risk of harm. Those that are high risk now stay with the National Probation Service, and we're more than capable to do the job as an organisation of trained probation officers.
I would agree is that they should never be assessed as low risk based on our current risk definitions, and these practices are not only made on DV offenders and reflect poor training and understanding of risk rather than a policy to downgrade risk.
"The problem with DV is that this country has moved from a place where we pretended DV didn't exist, to acting as if all men are perpetrators, and that even the slightest situation in any intimate relationship is now labelled as DV and with a shocking default position of the man as the perpetrator."
DeleteAre you kidding me? Utter nonsense, and dangerously reminiscent of some of the so-called "men's rights" rubbish that is increasingly bubbling up these days, from embittered individuals who can't see that improving the lot of women doesn't come at a zero sum cost to men.
And just to add, PSO's and PO's in CRC's are more than qualified to supervise DV offenders. I too am tired of these articles that seek to fight TR but at the reckless cost of labelling our colleagues as incompetent.
ReplyDeleteThe article specifically references the point that it is not just about competence (I know SPOs who aren't competent to manage DV), it is about responsibility and pay. PSOs are already holding cases I was not allowed near as a first year PO. It is dumbing down and it is paying less. PSOs, in their ambition to improve their professional standing, are undermining the arguments that show that part of the PO PAY is for the additional responsibility of DV and safeguarding cases. If someone will do it for less, they will pay less and you have achieved nothing but increased responsibility for no additional remuneration. That's not incompetent. It's just plain dumb.
ReplyDeleteIt must be obvious to all practioners that TR will not be defeated by reason.
ReplyDeleteIs it to be defeated only when the consequences are obvious to the mainstream media and they publish about it daily or is there more that can be achieved by practitioners so at least some harm is avoided and if so how?
It will be defeated when the bidders realise that they are setting themselves up for a mess of trouble in terms of losses and reputational damage.
ReplyDeleteRef Anon 12.57
DeleteThat would only defeat the privatisation which though vital is not quite as vital as reuniting local probation and installing a proper system of local and democratic governance such has never before existed.
With the increase in tagging more DH victims will be put at risk. Will court duty officers be given the time to get police checks or will curfews be handed out willy nilly.
ReplyDeleteIf tagging is all that these Bidders offer, the Magistracy will not impose community sentences. The credibility of Probation needs to be maintained and superficial posturing will not cut it. Magistrates are bright people and won't settle for the pretences being proposed.
DeleteThe last probation inspectorate report I can find on domestic violence is over ten years old. It identified many areas for improvement, not least responding to changes in risk factors – for example in three-quarters of cases risk was not reviewed following significant events: 'Typically if a DV perpetrator moved back to live with his victim, or if further assaults occurred, steps were not taken by the case manager to review the risk factors and level of RoH'. A report on police performance last March was not encouraging: 'The issue of risk assessment needed urgent attention: perpetrator targeting was underdeveloped in most forces. The Chief Inspector Tom Winsor said 'It is essential that the police make substantial reforms to their handling of domestic abuse, including in their understanding of the coercive and psychological nature of the crime' Quite amazing that all these years on the 'coercive and psychological nature' of DV needs highlighting to the police. Have they learnt anything?
ReplyDeleteIt is disappointing that after so many years of partnerships working and the rhetoric of risk as background music, there is still a long, long way to go. Womens' refuges across the country are also closing whilst others struggle to remain open with reduced funding. In probation the assessment of domestic violence perpetrators has been steadily degraded: a decade ago it was de riguer for a PO to write a comprehensive report based on a minimum of two interviews. Now, they can be produced on the day via an FDR prepared by unqualified staff who may have been minimally trained for a few days. When you consider the gradual dumbing down of assessments, you can see how principles of good practice predicated on sound evidence have simply been expediently tossed aside.
Probation was not doing a great job ten years ago and the police are no better now. It seems reasonable to conclude that things will get worse, but we should not be too starry-eyed about probation performance in this area of work.
I agree with 08.33, every single word. Practice is being changed to suit the TR agenda and the court reports are the beginning of this. I have tried the risk escalation process, it is a bloody nightmare to use and took me half a day and two calls to IT, then the NPS officer had a nightmare too. Previously I would have just talked to my manager updated the risk and continued to manage the case myself reacting to the change in risk. It really makes me so sad to lose a case I've worked with for ages and where I was the one to recognise the changes only for someone in NPS to take it over not knowing anything about it. Plus, don't get me started about the DV reports coming out from courts, really they are just not good enough.
ReplyDeleteour FDR template does not even have a section for Relationships. Some court officers will type it in manually but others not. I have now began complaining each time I get a sub-standard report from court and I believe that these complaints are being carried forward. With regards to being split into the CRC, I am a PSO and am struggling with mental health cases that would previously have gone to a PO - I feel as though i'm in over my head and cant do the job anymore - goodluck to those PSOs who feel able to take DV/CP/MH cases on but i'm not and have no wish to do so - in effect i'm being put out of a job. Finally, I've had no training on any of the above either and it's a case of ask a colleague if an when you come upon a query.
ReplyDeleteSpoke to a trainee yesterday. She had just finished her HALF DAY training on DA. I had 3 days and that only scratched the surface.
ReplyDelete"Utter nonsense, and dangerously reminiscent of some of the so-called "men's rights" rubbish that is increasingly bubbling up these days, from embittered individuals who can't see that improving the lot of women doesn't come at a zero sum cost to men."
ReplyDeleteAnon 17:33 - Wtf? You missed everything in the post above you that doesn't tie in with your own warped agenda - especially the part where I said I've been a victim of DV myself. Men do have 'rights', and I hate to think what you're implying by the above comment. I hope you don't work with victims or perpetrators of DV as you don't seem very balanced.
Reading some of the other comments here I'm a bit surprised. One commenter saying a trainee had a half days training, another suggesting we don't update risk when DV perpetrators return to the relationship or home, and others talking of being bound by an FDR template. These are comments of first year officers, whether PO or PSO. I do understand, but training has to start somewhere and part of the development is about reflection, learning on the job, learning from colleagues, etc, so it is not just about training. This should also be applied to report writing, and if the author needs a specific heading or template to include important information then they probably aren't ready to be writing reports. Likewise, if there are people not considering/reviewing risk and interventions for rehabilitation when significant events occur then it is development to understand risk which is required for them and this would not just be for DV cases. These are all things that we learn over time, and although there are many excellent staff for us all to learn from, for me the concern is whether there will be time for learning and development when private companies take over CRC's.
For all the other moans and groans here, and those not rounded enough to see that the title post by Su McConnel is well written but flawed and short-sighted, go assess all your DV cases as high risk, it will keep me in a job.
Probation Officer, it would appear that you are ultra sensitive to changes in risk and you always take appropriate action. But the probation inspectorate report found that three-quarters of your colleagues failed to incorporate significant changes into their risk assessments.
DeleteYeah, coz I barely have the time to do the ISP's for all the cases that are landing on my desk. It's a joke. Daily I am torn between recording risk to cover my own back or addressing it to protect the public.
DeleteIf I could see Chris 'Comical Ali' Grayling I'd give him a piece of my mind!
Probation Officer I agree with you and it is concerning to read some of the comments from people who don't seem to understand your views. There is no reason for all dv cases to be high risk.
DeleteHowever post TR there have been some terrible reports from NPS on medium risk dv cases - rushed without all the relevant information. Then in CRC medium risk dv cases are pretty much all POs are getting to work with.
Imagine a caseload of 40-50 medium risk dv offenders to manage, day after day, managing risk, filling out forms, meeting targets.
Now imagine 40-50 victims. 40-50 victims. 80-100 if you include the children, which you should.
TR has created this. It has also added into the mix a ridiculous amount of bureaucracy meaning that when risk has increased and the victims are most vulnerable, probation will fail them. Fail them by changing the officer who knows the case and can best manage the risk, who knows what plans are in place and how to execute them. This is happening with all cases but Su is right to highlight medium risk dv cases as it is happening with them the most.
Reported earlier comment by mistake. Copy paste error, and fingers too big for small keys!
ReplyDeleteI was meant to say it is hard to keep on top of the caseload and we don't always have time to do things immediately. Main thing is we try.
I'm afraid that I do not try as hard as I used to :(
DeleteSu's blog is important and key to public protection issues. Anon18:56 also hits a critical nail on the head - doing the work v. recording the work. A mantra of our management has always been "if it isn't recorded, it hasn't happened". So for a CRC PO with 60 cases, maybe 40 are DV, of which maybe 20 are still weekly & 20 fortnightly; maybe 15 have a relevant specified activity & 5 have an accredited programme. So lets assume that, for this example, the PO sees 30 DV perpetrators each week. Would an hour per case be acceptable, allowing for face-to-face contact, meaningful intervention AND recording the contact?
ReplyDeleteIf so, that's 30 hours' work weekly.
That leaves (contractually) 7 hours' weekly to see the remaining 20 cases, attend child safeguarding meetings, liaison with women safety workers, attend (or prepare reports for) local DV forums, undertake pre- and post-programme work, complete any OASys assessments, undertake liaison with local police (if such a protocol exists for the CRC), complete any CRC-imposed paperwork, travel between meetings (in some rural areas thus can mean an hour each way)... then there are additional mundane tasks such as duty officer, case inductions, supervision (what's that? I hear you cry), team meetings (uh?), training (???), mandatory corporate events...
Its not safe. Its barely possible. Its plain dangerous and wrong.
Su's blog highlights that whilst we are closer to getting this work right, we only see and impact upon a fraction of the abusive power & control shit that thrives in the UK. The behaviour of government officials, MPs and others in power only serves to feed the problem. The bullying and intimidation, the psychological terrorism, the threats, the control, the gagging... its got DV perpetrator written right across it. And its not a male dominated trait.
I'd use different figures but they only strengthen your point. Up on High unless we are really in the deep doo doo (couldn't happen?) the movers and shakers don't assume 37 hours a week - they assume, after leave sickness , training about 25 hours a week for planning purposes. This is an average per practitioner week in week out over years rather than weeks and defines the capacity of the system to undertake work. That's less than half hour per case per week. It works out at about 30 minutes per client on a case load of 50. It includes picking up the call from reception , walking down the stairs, locating a room to interview and then after the interview walking back the way you came and then writing it up (and how long does it take to access the nDelius to do this?)
DeleteWhilst we are on the issue of DV. I must say I have never agreed with expedited reports being written on DV perpetrators.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the victim being able to make useif time being away from bully so she can more time to decide what she wants to do. Also it is atrocious that reports are being written on such a matter without having sight of DV or social services checks.
I left in 2003 - in early my years in the 70s probation had largely got away from "stand down" reports and there were locally negotiated adjournments of often 3 (in custody) or up to 4 week adjournments for PSRs - after all cases had often been waiting months to get into court so an extra few days to get a quality researched report seems worthwhile in the interests of justice.
DeleteOf course sometimes short adjournments were needed and as a court duty officer in both magistrates and crown courts I was party to making such arrangements to deal with such situations.
So by the end of my time in service 2002/3 - by which time stupidly and dangerously the report writing process was often detached from the supervision - meaning less continuity of contact "one on one" and so practitioners were less likely to be able to be part of a defendant/client's total journey from conviction to end of supervision.
This aspect of probation practice in the recent past seems almost a distant memory, even though the benefits to society and the client and job satisfaction are formidable, and disregarding it is dangerous to all.
Remember that it was not until the 1980s - due initially to Napo policy that we stopped writing partial reports pre trial in crown court cases where a not guilty plea was indicated.
As a practitioner, (report writer & court duty officer) - I would argue strongly and frequently persuasively in court and in written reports that if an enquiry was not comprehensive - including home visit(s) - speak to all likely useful informants - including sometimes victims - assess for special treatment - such as medical - drug therapy - etc - I would argue for adjournments - and would say without the extra information I am incapable of forming a proper professional opinion - what happened? - My opinions (NEVER recommendations in PSRs) obviously were not always accepted but I would NEVER not express such an opinion - it was the professional thing to do. So how is it that reports (I read here) are being written without such thoroughness or with an expression given to the need for more enquiries even though an adjournment is necessary?
Rushing the probation inquiry phase of the court process can have the impact of diminishing the importance of probation enquiries and by colluding with management/government or even the courts wishes for that to happen we are contributing to probation being considered as an added extra rather than crucial to the whole judicial process.
This will be even more important once even more ex-prisoners are subjected to post release supervision if ever the ORA 2014 is implemented. The most important part of the casework assessments at that time are comparing the situation NOW with that described in the PSR and supporting records and supplementary reports and assessments from the pre sentence period.