Monday 10 November 2014

Assessment Special

Assessments of one kind or another have been mentioned a lot recently by contributors, so here's a selection to mull over:-

I hear ALL custodial sentences will begin with a CRC assessment. The fact that the CRC won't have ANY information available to them, especially on NPS cases, on which to base that assessment seems to have passed by the geniuses at the MoJ.

Off topic but does anyone know anything about these plans for basic custody screening and new/amended Oasys and ndelius for CRCs and Through the Gate work that has been a mentioned on Twitter today?


It is just a colleague announcing that their CRC has announced that an updated version of OASys & Delius is being launched shortly to accommodate custody screening for those U12mth who will be released and subject to a period of statutory supervision.


Some very different Start Custody Oasys are already showing up.


So we have NPS staff in Prison doing CRC OASys? This just gets stranger and stranger!


No, the screening for the 12 month and under will be done by existing/newly recruited staff of the companies that are taking over in the CRC's. There are already recruitment drives for this, if you look at the web pages of some of the smaller companies involved.


And will the screening be for all less than 12mth regardless of risk? ie cases that might go to NPS? If so this will further complicate communication across the split what with different OASys and Ndelius being mentioned here!


I think there's going to be a terrible shock in store when the RSR tool diverts most of the under 12 month custodials to NPS. In my experience it takes an awful lot of bad behaviour to get yourself sent to prison for a short sentence.


Is that correct? My info is all will need a case allocation and RSR done on the day of sentence so immediate problems will be interview space in courts before they go to the prison and the staff to do it. Once at the prison they have a custody assessment which needs info from the CA and RSR! Much tension between court probation and the prison over this is emerging....


Simple solution. Shove more POs in prison.


Before Christmas there will be the release of new versions of OASys and delius in order to allow for custody screening on all cases with the introduction of supervision for all those sentenced to custody.  A timeline of events will be shared with us shortly.


From my days as a recent Offender Supervisor at a local prison, we were undertaking Basic Custody Screening OASys on every u12m case. That was two years ago and am sure they are still doing it. The questions are few and are brief. It's not well designed but does OK for screening short sentences. The Sentence plan is just a few lines to enable people to refer to different services. Quite neat in that respect. I can imagine there may be some future in expanding its use. Anything is better than a full OASys.

Unless you're a PO on the receiving end of that OASys. You have to do a full assessment when all the previous information has been wiped out by a happy OS. I spend far too much time copying and pasting my old assessments into Word before I can repaste them into the assessment. It is totally mad.

Not a single court report is checked by anyone other than the author themselves. There might be the odd PO who occasionally will ask a colleague to pass an opinion on a difficult sentence, but they are few and far between. I am an experienced Court Duty Officer, PSO grade, who not only produces several 'fast delivery' reports per week, but acts as quality control for every full PSR that is submitted to Magistrates. I would hazard a guess that at least 25% of said reports are sub standard and myself and my colleagues have to intervene before the Magistrates get sight of the 'proposal'.

What you seem not to be able to grasp, but something I have explained several times on this blog, is that Magistrates no longer need 'social enquiry' type reports. PSO's are very skilled at interpreting the Magistrates "Indication Of Seriousness" and proposing a sentence commensurate with those instructions. The future is in generic 'Activity Requirements' with absolutely no need to be specific about the detail of such proposals. Any detail and/or 'Risk' can be further explored at 'Post Sentence Assessment' stage. I am in no way condoning these developments, but I am reaffirming that this will be introduced in all courts when the new legislation is approved.

Don't worry the rush to tag/GPS an additional 75,000 will lead to no reports or assessments as all the service user needs is an address, that doesn't get checked for risks, or even if the building exists!


I've just heard from a former colleague that NPS staff are being forced to do RSR training version 13 which has been cobbled together in 2 days and were told by the trainers (one a PO grade who used to be active in Napo - shame) that this was a direct result of the Judicial Review and the MoJ are insisting everyone has to do it. However, half the staff haven't done it and the MoJ will say that they all have. Apparently, there are quite a few mistakes on it including one on a question on sexual offending where the answer has already been put as: last offence in 1866! The trainers didn't know whether this was affecting the final scores. Has anyone else any experience of this?


There is a real panic about the Case Allocation, RSR and Risk Escalation Tools. NOMS have sent a number of staff out to court teams, where most areas have made this part of a POs duties. My understanding from the 2 colleagues picked to speak to this person (both non union incidentally) was that NOMS have realised this is being done very differently in areas - a big issue for JR me thinks. 


I have posted information previously about this and signalled to NAPO from June about the issues and lack of training. I have simply told the truth not embellished because it does not need to be. FAR too many young people are being sent to NPS - it is tick box assessment and does not differentiate between the behaviour in offences eg arson (setting light to a bin as opposed to setting a fire at a school building, you get the point?). Also staff were previously told to use the 'professional judgement' override to allocate cases appropriate to NPS or CRC and have since been told this can only be exceptionally used.

Oops - before any one comes back to me about the arson offences I have described, it is just meant to illustrate ranges of behaviour, I fully accept both COULD be serious. It is just that usually probation staff are capable of exercising judgements rather than one size fits all assessments. That's what I meant!


I understand from management that after the split, initially NPS was only able to comply with the RSR/CAS process in 20% of cases and even though they've had 4 months to get this right and have doubled the time allowed for case allocation by the end of October, they were still only able to achieve a successful 61%. Given that most PTRS had targets set at 90%, this is abysmal. No wonder they're panicking! 


Having read the Torygraph article, the biggest scandal is what is happening with Sex Offender Treatment. I have lost count of the number of cases I worked with where SOTP was the main sentence planning target and men were relocated to other prison establishments just so they could access this. Then, even though OASys assessed them as High Risk of Serious Harm, the prison decided to assess them by Risk Matrix 2000 only, so for many men without multiple offences they would score 'low'. This was then used to "prioritise" other men over them, leaving Probation Officers to manage them upon release as untreated sex offenders, so much more risky. 


That is one example of why Prisons should never ever interfere in probation - because they do not understand what probation does and in effect, fiddled the figures as a means of not delivering expensive courses. Of course they would argue they did not have the resources to meet the needs of so many sex offenders, which leads us back to the Secretary of State then!!!

The Programmes team at NOMS HQ set the criteria for SOTP in custody, not HMPS. RM2000 is the sole criteria regardless of OASys risk levels/dynamic risks. They also decommissioned the Rolling SOTP programme for prisoners who score Low on RM2000 as they claimed to have evidence that it wasn't effective. Apparently doing bugger all/warehousing 1000s of them as we do now/releasing them completely untreated is equally as effective as R-SOTP....


This just published:-

"An Examination of the Predictive Validity of the Structured Assessment of Risk and Need–Treatment Needs Analysis (SARN-TNA) in England and Wales."

A psychological risk assessment tool used by prisons and the probation service (NOMS) is not effective when evaluating the future risk of convicted male sex offenders.

In a new paper published online in Criminal Justice and Behaviour, Dr Ruth Tully and Professor Kevin Browne from the Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology at The University of Nottingham, together with Professor Leam Craig from the University of Birmingham, examine the effectiveness the SARN-TNA (Structured Assessment of Risk and Need – Treatment Needs Analysis) in predicting the reconviction of sex offenders.

The SARN-TNA has been used routinely by NOMS, and has been heavily relied upon to assess sex offenders' need for treatment and whether they should be released early from prison. When a sex offender is released from prison, probation services often use this tool to decide on the type and intensity of restrictions, treatment, supervision and surveillance that the sex offender receives.

Ineffective in decision-making

External bodies such as the parole board heavily weight the SARN TNA assessment in its decision-making, for instance when deciding to release prisoners serving a life sentence. These assessments are so heavily relied upon that parole board hearings are often deferred at costs of thousands of pounds to the taxpayer if a SARN-TNA has not been conducted - but until now the SARN-TNA has not been properly or independently tested. The SARN-TNA has now been shown to be ineffective.

These were the alarming findings of a four-year study of reconviction within a population of 496 adult male sex offenders, who were assessed using the SARN-TNA. The SARN-TNA assigns a risk level of low, medium or high to each prisoner. The study found that the SARN-TNA risk levels demonstrated no predictive accuracy at a two and four year follow-up.

When the tool was examined to see if it significantly predicted reconviction in any way, only one of its four domains (sexual interests) was found to be predictive of sexual reconviction. Additionally, reconviction rates were not significantly different between risk groups; meaning that 'high' risk men did not differ in rate of reconviction compared to 'low' risk men.

First study of its kind

Dr Tully says: "This field based study is the only study of its kind in the UK. It found that the SARN-TNA is not effective in predicting risk of sexual reconviction. This is particularly concerning when offenders are released on the basis of opinions of risk reduction using an ineffective framework. Probation Services aren't able to effectively manage sex offenders if they haven't been appropriately risk assessed. As a worst case scenario, if this tool is relied upon, a 'low risk' sex offender whose risk was really 'medium to high' could be released from prison early and reoffend.

"Forensic  by psychologists is complex and difficult, and defensible decision making is crucial. A 'one-size-fits-all' approach of applying the SARN-TNA to assess risk after treatment, regardless of the specifics of the case or effectiveness of the tool is not acceptable. Sex offenders should not be released on the basis of a tool that is statistically no better at predicting reconviction than chance.

"Clinicians and policy makers should consider very carefully the future of SARN-TNA as a risk and treatment need assessment given the findings of this study. Agencies should take a critical approach to the use of this , and also carefully consider the use of alternative sex offender risk assessment tools. National Offender Management Services (NOMS) should routinely allow independent bodies such as Universities ease of access to their data to conduct research. This would aid advancements in knowledge in the field of  risk assessment."

The study is available to download for napo members from Sage (follow instructions on the Napo site). It's a single study raising valid questions, but with clearly described limitations. It recommends that if SARN TNA continues to be used, there are some adjustments that make some sense in principle.

As concerning as the Parole Board dependence is on SARN, this study also doesn't support the validity of RM2000 tool, which police seem to be tied to when it comes to managing RSOs in the community and which is key in determining whether those supervised by probation will receive intervention at all i.e Anyone screened as low on RM2000 unlikely to be treated. But then I got sifted to the CRC, so I should probably leave this stuff to the experts.

This, like several other assessment tools - being used as an absolute. Terrifying.....

So many tools so little time, so many boxes to tick so little time to interview in depth. Once upon a time, it was de rigueur to interview twice for domestic violence and write a full report. All that sensible practice was ditched to satisfy centrally imposed benchmarks and costings. Detailed risk assessment is a luxury and all the bosses want is categorisation on the cheap.

When everything gets bureaucratised, and the conveyor belt speeds up, is it any wonder there is a speed/quality trade-off? In my experience SARN TA is utterly relied upon by the Parole Board. They appear to believe it to be a rigorous assessment just because a psychologist has completed it. It is POs who manage risk in the community and they should be listened to more. I really welcome this research and hope it shakes the Parole Boards belief in the infallibility of the SARN! 

63 comments:

  1. Noms guidance:

    2.3​Additional assessments to be used as appropriate, alongside OASys, are described below. None of the assessment tools have been validated for use with women. However, there is work in progress relating to female sex offenders and a brief description is included at the end of this section.
    • Risk Matrix 2000S
    RM2000S is a straightforward screening tool used on all adult male sex offenders. It, is based on static factors and predicts the likelihood of reconviction for a sexual offence. Staff must undertake and pass an accredited training course in order to administer RM2000. All male sex offenders supervised by NOMS will be assessed using RM2000 at the pre-sentence stage, and following any events that might alter the RM2000 score. This assessment will inform sentencing recommendations, sentence planning, parole recommendations and risk management.
    • Structured Assessment of Risk and Need Treatment Needs Analysis (SARN TNA)
    The SARN Treatment Needs Analysis is a structured tool for assessing the presence and strength of dynamic risk factors for sexual offending. The SARN TNA is completed on offenders who are assessed for, and who undertake, a Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). It is designed to assess pre-treatment needs, progress through treatment, and also to determine any remaining needs post-treatment. Staff using the SARN tool must be chartered or trainee psychologists or qualified probation officers. They, must be trained and tested as competent in the completion of the SARN Treatment Need Analysis. The SARN TNA identifies treatment need across four “domains”: sexual interest, offence supportive attitudes, relationships and self management. All sex offenders undertaking SOTPs will be assessed using SARN TNA. This assessment should inform the way that treatment is tailored to the individual offender.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Above is from noms "position statement" dated 2010, here:

      https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/information-access-rights/foi-disclosure-log/prison-probation/foi-80104-annex-a.doc

      Delete
    2. Many thanks.

      "This document sets out the position of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) on the assessment, management, and treatment of sex offenders, and on the training and management of staff undertaking that work. It draws on existing standards, practice and policy documents. Its purpose is to:

      • guide NOMS staff and managers in the key areas of work they should be undertaking with sex offenders: assessment, management, and treatment or intervention (sections 2–4). This includes clarifying the tools and programmes approved for use by NOMS;

      • guide managers in NOMS on the training, support and management of staff who undertake direct work with sex offenders (section 5); and
      • guide commissioners on the services that should be in place in order to manage and treat this offender group (section 6).

      Key documents are referenced. More detailed Practice Guidance will be issued to support this position statement."

      Delete
    3. How many risk assessment tools are available? Here's a selection of nine for various purposes:

      http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4692/T1

      Delete
  2. I'm concerned about why MOJ keep peddling the NPS being the rump of the service rubbish. What do they hope to achieve from it? Flattery in the hope that we don't notice something? What if that something is taking the PO role apart bit by bit to make each piece easier to get rid of until there is northing left?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Page 20 of the TOM has a colourful flow chart of community orders and suspended sentence orders split between NPS and CRC, which doesn't show OASys featuring in the CRC work at all! http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/rehab-prog/competition/target-operating-model.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's because they're not obliged to use it

      Delete
  4. http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/11/10/an-interesting-minister-withering-attack-on-grayling-over-pr

    We have a Justice Minister and SoS that doesn't give a hoot for professional assessesment, so why should we be suprised when we discover that the tools we're given are actually for the wrong job?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The professionalism of Probation is a closed book to the SoS. He thinks we are a bunch of lefties who don't understand that all these criminals need is a good slap. Dumb, unsophisticated, unintelligent, uninformed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/10/serco-profits-warning-shares-crash

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When bidders read this blog they probably think much if whats said is just aimed at trying to put them off bidding for contracts.
      But given the chaotic and confused nature of probation services currently, caused by fogged thinking, political ideology, and untested haste, bidders would do well to read these words from Serco today, and please keep in mind whilst doing so, that their contracts are far less complicated then probation contracts.

      Serco said it "has failed to manage effectively the fact that over recent years there have been significant advances in public sector contracting, particularly in the UK, with new models that transfer substantially more risk to suppliers."As a consequence, we now have a number of contracts which are making large losses, and others which are in sectors where we are sub-scale."

      Delete
    2. There's tyhe text of the hyperlink for the news article here:
      http://news.yahoo.com/serco-warns-profits-unveils-rights-issue-115433327.html;_ylt=A7x9Unoms2BUhyUAwp13Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWpobjZlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw--

      Here's the article text (saving Jim some work! (Jim you have enough to do!)
      London (AFP) - Britain's scandal-hit services giant Serco cut its profits outlook Monday and revealed plans to shrink the group after taking a £1.5-billion impairment charge, sending shares plunging by a third.
      Serco said in a gloomy trading update that it had identified likely impairments and other provisions totalling the equivalent of $2.4 billion or 1.9 billion euros.As a result, the company slashed its profits guidance for 2014 and 2015, highlighting the impact of several major contracts where it is facing large losses.The group cut its 2014 forecast for adjusted operating profit to between £130 million and 140 million, compared with prior guidance of not less than £155 million. It also reduced estimates for 2015.
      Serco added it will streamline the group to re-focus on justice and immigration, defence, transport, citizen services and healthcare, while it will look to hive off most of its business outsourcing operations.
      To finance the drastic overhaul, Serco will sell £550 million of new shares to existing shareholders in a rights issue in the first quarter of next year.
      The news sent Serco's share price tumbling 30.56 percent at 220.19 pence in late morning trade on the London stock market.
      "The rapid progress we have made in recent weeks ... has brought us to the point that we are able to provide an initial estimate of the impairments, write-downs and onerous contract provisions that are likely to be required at year end," said chief executive Rupert Soames.
      "Whilst it is a bitter pill, it is better for all concerned that we swallow it now and establish a really solid foundation on which to build Serco's future."
      Soames took up his post in May after Serco was forced to pay back the British government £68.5 million last year for overcharging on criminal tagging.
      Serco added it had made two "strategic mis-steps" which it identified as diversion into non-core areas, and concentration on winning new business.
      Serco said it "has failed to manage effectively the fact that over recent years there have been significant advances in public sector contracting, particularly in the UK, with new models that transfer substantially more risk to suppliers.
      "As a consequence, we now have a number of contracts which are making large losses, and others which are in sectors where we are sub-scale."
      Serco is based in Hampshire, southern England, and employs 100,000 people around the world. It specialises in the provision of services such as running hospitals, prisons, transport links, and support for armed forces.
      The group's strategic review remains ongoing and will be presented at its full-year results due in March 2015.

      Delete
    3. "The company admitted it had made “strategic mis-steps” in the past, by diversifying into areas of business where it had little expertise, as well as being caught out by changes in public sector contracts that put more risk for contract failure on the supplier."
      from thee same article reinforces the contributors view (Anon 12.34) that even a big player like Serco is really struggling with dealing with difficult areas of complex service delivery.
      One may take the view that they are more than happy not to be involved in the current TR competition !!

      Delete
  7. Another heavy push on joining the Probation Institute in our CRC team briefing document this week. It says that the senior management team have all signed up, presumably as a way of encouraging the rest of us to do the same...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose you can hardly blame them as they can say the unions have signed up! I hope the boycott continues.

      Delete
    2. A Q&A document from the PI claims that they had 600 members as of October. Not much out of 18,000 Probation staff really, is it?

      Delete
  8. What is the point? An organisation to promotes good practice in an area where good practice will no longer apply because it is too expensive? But like the word 'deluxe' when attached to cheap goods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that post share sale, membership of the P.I. will be on a basis of 'conscription' rather then 'subscription'.
      Private companies eager to demonstrate its 'professionalism' will want to be able to show the world that their entire workforce are all registered members of this professional centre of 'excellence'. It'll be their way of demonstrating the staff they employ are only the best, all of course members of the P.I.
      I think thats a good enough concern for the union to withdraw its support.

      Delete
    2. According to its website, ' The Probation Institute will become the ‘go to place’ and leading voice on probation practice and policy.' You'd think it would have something to say about current policy and practice, but not a squeak. I'd say this blog is the 'go to place' and the PI should adopt the three wise monkeys as its logo, or a white elephant!

      Delete
  9. The best predictor of violence is previous violence and it's the best predictor we are ever likely to have. It may be possible to add a little information here and there, about use of intoxicants, weapons, assessments of personality and mental disorder, but it remains an inexact science.

    In actuality it is more likely that risk will be overestimated through false positives. Assessments of risk have too high a profile in probation. There are no experts in risk assessments but this claim was/is frequently made on behalf of probation – making the reputation of the service a hostage to fortune and open to media and political backlash when a tragedy hit the headlines. At best such assessments are quasi-science and the resultant predictions are extremely tentative – as we know low/medium risk is more likely to result in an SFO than high risk.

    But none of this stops the proliferation of assessment 'tools', which is a thriving industry and includes all the other psychometric testing that goes on in other sectors. All this form filling, but does it really make things safer? And yet such assessments, which are affected by the usual biases that beset all assessments, will be the cornerstone of the TR model in a world full of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Assessments are false prophets, weak predictors of future behaviour and they insulate policy makers from operational realities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well put and without question true.It seems to have become the belief of some that completing a form / assessment tool and sending it to some one else or , in some cases, simply putting it on file counts as ' managing risk' .It seems for some,they have been led or decided to believe that identifying a risk, finding as many negatives and' deficits' as possible, writing that down and filling in the form is job done.
      Alongside this the ridiculous belief that a human being can have their risks identified.. be caused to sit through ' offence focused work' and be 'treated ' and then 'managed' by a plan, it has of course to be robust, and that this reduces the risk of further offending and / or associated harm. Stuff and utter nonsense.

      Delete
  10. Computor systems in a mess? Need all your problems solved by a highly performing professional company with a track record in excellence?
    Here come ATHOS!! (couldn't make it up, could you)?

    http://www.sourcingfocus.com/site/newsitem/moj_awards_atos_125m_contract/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ATOS will no doubt do for information technology what they did for our understanding of sickness and disability. And if they screw up they will just walk away again.

      Delete
    2. Sub contracted through lockheed martin who make the missle and weapons, ATOS are they not the people who were doing the capability assessments.

      Hmm, this is all a bit FUBAR.

      Delete
    3. re 1421 and 1526 - even cowboys know how to ride a horse!! What CAN this lot do???

      We all know how good Atos is - choke - and the Computerworld UK site says that Atos had previously been on the short list before the Treasury scrapped it in 2013, and this is the 2nd time around, with Computer Centre dropping out and 'no other suppliers were attracted to the opportunity'. (indeed, they are still running...)

      er - is there something they know???

      and it gets worse - 'in May, Computerworld revealed that the MOJ did not know what services were delivered and paid for within the contract, with an internal report concluding that "there was a risk of material errors or irregularities in charging, or a single operational failure."

      It's like getting contractors in to work on your house, when you don't know how many rooms you have, or what needs doing, and what you are paying for - might as well have said - 'please rip me off!' (I'm sure you can think of a better comparison)

      Also - Computerworld states that Atos will be covering MOJ's 90,000 sites, whereas Sourcing Focus refers to working across the MOJ's 2,300 sites. -??

      Who is that man deceiving? himself? Not us - we know he is a hapless nutter.

      and now for the punch line - hold your bellies folks, this will kill you - an MOJ spokesperson said ' and now we will enter a new period of planning when we will enable transition to a new way of working during 2015'!

      Oh yes - it is called total meltdown....

      Delete
    4. 16:50: Are you sure about your take of ATOS? ' Atos is focused on business technology that powers progress and helps organisations to create their firm of the future. The Group is the Worldwide Information Technology Partner for the Olympic & Paralympic Games and is listed on the Euronext Paris market. Atos operates under the brands Atos, Atos Consulting, Atos Healthcare, Atos Worldgrid, Bull, Canopy, and Worldline.'

      Delete
    5. ATOS has been awarded a £125m contract by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) to provide end user computing services. The deal will include supply and maintenance of all devices (desktops, tablets, laptops, scanners, printers, cameras etc.), support for mobile client devices and distributed platforms hosted in local servers to support business applications. This will be delivered across the MoJ’s 2,300 sites including prisons and probation services centres.

      Delete
  11. Feckin' cowboys, the lot of 'em.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Athos, Porthos, Aramis & D'Artagnan - French cowboys.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't Aramis the name of one of the failed mutuals? Or was it Aram:!s?

      Delete
  12. Remember this from National Audit Office? Let's hope they get it right this time
    http://www.nao.org.uk/report/the-national-offender-management-information-system/

    ICT and systems analysis

    The National Offender Management Information System

    “The initiative to introduce a single offender management database has been expensive and ultimately unsuccessful. These problems could have been avoided if the National Offender Management Service had established realistic budget, timescales and governance for the project at the start and followed basic project management principles in its implementation. In delivering the new reduced programme, NOMS need to focus on better financial controls and more effective management oversight.”

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just watching parliament. Graylings tried a sneaky move on the house over the EAW, and hes in big trouble. Even the conservatives are slating really badly. Conservatives accusing him of bringing the house into disrepute!!!
    Must watch later if you can. Its unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/live-european-arrest-warrant-debate-in-a-shambles/

      Delete
    2. its all going off there

      Delete
  14. Difference of opinion about right of probation agency to adjust terms of probation order - in Broward County, Florida: -

    http://www.browardbulldog.org/2014/11/bso-quietly-changes-courts-probation-orders-broward-judge-blows-the-whistle/

    I wonder if English and Welsh sentencers will be agreeable when the right to set supervision conditions is taken from them and given to Commercial Companies running probation contracts, if ever the Offender Rehabilitation Order 2014 is implemented?

    http://www.browardbulldog.org/2014/11/bso-quietly-changes-courts-probation-orders-broward-judge-blows-the-whistle/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But isn't this exactly what probation officers used to do in the days of discretion? before suffocating national standards. We called it autonomy. Do we really want the courts to always determine levels of contact?

      Delete
    2. noting 18 25, I also refer to a comment put on Jim's column today of earlier comments, beginning 'what you seem not able to grasp....'.

      It goes on to say- 'PSO' s are very skilled at interpreting the magistrates' indication of seriousness and imposing a sentence commensurate with these instructions'. Is it no longer the practice to use the mags indications as a guideline, but from which you could argue the suitability of a sentence outside the magistrates considerations, by agreeing that this may seem to be the most appropriate sentence, but given that................., the court may feel able to make an exceptional decision to.........

      If your reasons were justifiable, the mags would almost always agree to a sentence outside their consideration. Many mags admitted somewhere in the 21stC, that Probation and sentencing became too complicated for them to understand fully. I have a neighbour who had been a magistrate during the a further batch of changes, and a team manager had gone to the court to explain. The neighbour told me that the Court was glad of the visit, as they were 'dependant on you guys, as we haven't a clue what we're doing'.

      I kid you not.

      Delete
    3. I should have anticipated that from Anon at 18:25 - Yes of course that is what POs did traditionally, but if a sentencer specifically requested, that a person be seen at least once a month and the sentencer reserved the judicial supervision of Order to them & requested regular reports that would normally be done and the OFFICER of the court would answer directly to the court NOT the employer or the Government, except in matters for which they were directly responsible.

      Equally if there was a statutory condition, that a probationer report at a specific frequency I am sure that would have been observed, as indeed I did supervise conditions, such as "attend a day training centre for 90 days" as part of a Pbn Order.

      However what is coming IF the ORA2014 is implemented is that the employee of the CRC or NPS (are they an officer of the court? -discuss) - will determine whether the supervisee even attends a day centre or undertakes a drug treatment order, etc., etc. as that power will be removed from all sentencers.

      (We have read in previous comments that somewhere in Yorkshire sentencers are already working in that way - which I would suggest is illegal and hopefully dealt with by Her Majesty's Inspector of Probation and possibly also by which ever bodies advise Magistrates, such as the Magistrates' Association)

      Delete
    4. I'm a PO in a CRC and I know I'm definitely not an officer of the court. However, I'd suggest that we stopped being officers of the court a long time ago, when the higher ups started talking about us providing services to the courts.

      But quite frankly the courts appear to be making increasingly ludicrous sentences - certainly there has been a definite upward spike in the number going back for revocation as unworkable from my office. This appears to be getting worse following the split between NPS and CRC, with report writers apparently not listening to advice given about cases by their erstwhile colleagues - or, to put it more charitably, not feeling able to act upon that advice.

      Delete
  15. I reiterate my earlier comment. I uege all staff to put a vote of no confidence in against your ACO if you have too much work in the NPS. THEY ARE DOING THIS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY!!!! Do it collectively. They cannot sack you all. In our area all it took was a discussion at a water coooer. An e-mail sent to all operating staff and then a drafted letter, that's all that was needed. We have our ACO on the uppers and heard about other area's getting somewhere too. Hoping they will pass this up. Stick together, they need you more than you need them!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope there is media publicity given to such letters of no confidence

      Delete
    2. I have a feeling that the upper management chain will be the first to feel the cuts, in either NPS or CRC, once the axe starts to swing. For the amount of contact I have with my SPO we may as well be pen-friends!! We have said nothing face to face that we could not do on the telephone. And if I can speak to a manager on the phone, why would I need one in my office. Or one for each office. The same goes for Directors. NOMS/CRC will have their own management structure in place, one that has 'taken the blue pill' and, like a Borg only with more warmth, fully embraces the culture of profit over people.

      To rephrase @19:05...we don't need them!!!

      Delete
    3. We've got that coveted in our area - by creating a post that sits nicely between ACO and SPO all ready for the cuts.

      Delete
  16. If probation was a bank they'd have saved it.

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Government are going to need all of (our) money when Serco renegotiate their contracts due to recent loses. You cannot seriously expect the rich to lose out can you!

      Delete
  17. Its all very well having assessment tools but not a lot of point when there is no time to use them. Our crc has a backlog of initial oasys despite being told they must be completed in 20 days. No-one wants to work like this. I have a constant knot of fear in my stomach waiting for something dreadful to happen. Along with being consumed by anger for the way I and others including offenders have been treated. Alongside this is my irritation with the apathy of colleagues who are complicit with TR and making money by writing reports or temping.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here here, well said, to add to this is the way we have been made to feel as CRC workers. like we chose to be in this position, all that bleating about NPS having a professional status. If ever there was a dumbing down of a profession it applies is to all those that were SHAFTED INTO CRC's.

      Delete
    2. Mind you, I was told by a CRC admin colleague today that when she recently applied for a post in the NPS the application form asked if she was a member of UKIP! Forgive me, but I thought UKIP was a legitimate political party, so why was the NPS asking? Also during interview she was asked if she had ever refused to carry out an instruction from her Manager........Two good reasons (in my book) not to ever want to be in the NPS, regardless of how bad it is at present in the CRC (and down here it is reaallllly bad...........)
      Deb

      Delete
    3. Fully trained & certified (and used to supervise others) in use of all versions of RM2k, SARN, HCR20. Now, as a CRC PO, I'm told by OASys that I'm not authorised to complete such assessments.

      Delete
  18. Don't forget there will be a significant number of senior managers who have been accepted for EVR and will be leaving post share sale...I seem to recall the deal was to not work past June 2015? This was a big pot of money and we have not been told how much of it is committed. Personally I am hoping some is left for POs...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm one of those Po's that wouldn't even wait for the ink to dry.

      Delete
    2. You're not the only one

      Delete
  19. Until recently there was no known method of saving the completed RSR.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Speaking as an ACO who is as fed up with all this nonsense I would welcome a vote of no confidence and of course I would pass this up tomy own seniors. The fact is I am stifled completely by new guidelines and what I could do six months ago is now out of my jurisdiction. This is very frustrating for me but it will at least show our own seniors that what is ging on is dangerous and destructive. I began my life in the wonderful probation service as admin and I have worked my way up slowly, not for the money but because I really don care about the service and the people who work for it believe it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In Manchester I can tell you now there is going to be a revolt very soon. Watch this space!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now there's a headline; Manchester is revolting.

      Sorry, couldn't resist what with being a Liverpool fan :)

      Delete
  22. Extracts from a CRC news letter: -

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_S_Hatton/status/531916096694386688

    https://twitter.com/Andrew_S_Hatton/status/531901932185849857

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/10/treasury-civil-service-spending-cuts-plan-general-election

    Big cuts coming to probation soon if election won by the conservatives. NPS cannot get complacent about what is coming there way too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm in a CRC and dislike it when I see comments that are posted about cuts to terms and conditions etc, as it comes across as smug even if that wasn't the intention. There were a few posts to that effect the other say and it was evident that tempers were starting to rise.

      But please can we refrain from making comments about NPS colleagues being complacent as well? By all means post the link, but I for one feel the comment is unnecessary.

      We may not be in quite the same boat any more, but we're all still heading towards that bloody great, Grayling-shapes iceberg.

      Delete
  24. Murder in Northumbria this weekend a medium risk woman formerly supervised by CRC charged. Order ended September.

    ReplyDelete
  25. who reads oasys assessments anyway? POs aren't even countersigned. Why, as a PSO, am I doing full oasys on relatively minor offences with offence analysis not linked to harm. Why??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EXACTLY!! If I'm going to see one of my clients, then I don't need to read the OASys, because I wrote the damn thing. If I'm seeing someone else's case, then the pertinent information should be on the Delius(eless) records. If I need a longer term perspective, I'll read the PSR. OASys is just a time-consuming database for measuring targets - and even then only if information is put in in the 'right' way.

      Delete