Bleak Futures Week 8

We are struggling in our Court team and continue to deal with the full implications of ORA. For example, Court staff now have to serve licences on people who are released from custody having served their sentence on remand - but I wonder has anyone thought this through at management level? There is the issue of completing CAS + any other forms they can throw at us etc - and of course all the paperwork will be at hand in Court previous convictions etc etc.

I do not see the situation easing and whilst I am the eternal optimist - the situation we find ourselves in has the capacity to sink even further into the mire. We all know it on the coal face - THIS IS NOT WORKING. For me, I think it is time to get out.

******
I'm confused. The recent inspection at HMP Northumberland states there are only 9 prisoners serving less than 12 months there. Why then have 7 PSO's from the CRC been put on notice that they may be directed to the prison to manage the Through The Gate cohort? Do Sodexo not know that most of their TTG's in Northumbria CRC will emerge from HMP Durham and the Courts?

******
It is absolutely clear that the TTG service applies to all prisoners being discharged from a designated resettlement prison, irrespective of sentence length. MoJ have been clear about this all along - read the Target Operating Model - and bidders have been aware.

******
Only 60% of the <12months cohort reoffend. Will we magically identify them and ignore the rest? Or focus on the 40% safer bets to maximise PBR profits? Of course there are the NPS <12months also who will not get TTG.

******
Nobody will get TTG as it will not be set up in time for when this whole thing collapses. Why ANYONE would want to join TTG is beyond me and with staff now being directed to work there (some Saturdays included, not sure if your kids mind though) and this can only negatively impact on the desire to do the job properly. I can see TTG having the highest sick record of ANY department in Probation.

******
I can't believe that it's not really known who TTG extends to. I thought like above it extended to all those leaving custody that were CRC bound. I hadn't even considered the NPS buying services. There is obviously cost attached to TTG as well as workload. Are the private sector about to realise the meaning of 'poison pill' contracts before they even get started? I think everyone just got so sick of hearing 12 months and under and £46 in their pocket, they just forget to ask.

******
I'm not sure how happy the CRC's will be providing services for short sentenced Sex Offenders. There's a lot of them and as we all know, people who start off with lower level offending, eg Exposure, Possession of Indecent Images, Sexual Assault by Touching (adult victim) etc, etc, frequently escalate to more serious behaviour. I think NPS are in for a bit of an unexpected workload increase.

******
Short sentenced shoplifters may also be deemed high risk due to previous histories or current circumstances (eg DV propensity) and so will not need to be sex offenders to be NPS. Some violent offences may attract short sentences for all sorts of reasons also and so NPS will have them to deal with.

******
It sounds more and more like the script of a Carry On film! It's going to be very interesting to see how many of these organisations running CRC's pull out of their contracts in the next 2 or so years. I have wondered why none of these new organisations seems to have hit the ground running - as previous posters have said surely their bids for these lucrative contracts were made on the basis of research, evidence etc? But apparently not. In my area there is not even a sniff of Purple Futures anywhere in the CRC office and we are now over two weeks down the line since they took over.

I also wonder how many lawsuits there will be brought for failure to provide TTG services and support to people coming out of prison as Grayling promised this and is now failing to deliver. It could be a nice little earner for some enterprising solicitor or two.

******
One of the problems for TTG that can't be addressed by CRCs, is the chaos that's happening Behind The Gate. It can't be long before the POA are forced to take action over dire working conditions and a very real concern for staff safety. TTG, if it ever does happen, is a very long way off, and I feel it'll just be an 'ideal' that will just fade away that no-one will remember in a year or two.

******
Funnily enough, digging holes only to fill them back in again is available under a RAR in my CRC. Grayling will have sold it to the Saudis as "innovative practice" before the month is out.

******
CRCs are clearly struggling to meet basic requirements but what of NPS? Please don't lose sight of what is going on there too with accommodation and especially ETE. The provision has gone and whereas mentors/volunteers are being put in place for CRCs (eventually) there is now a void in NPS provision. All of the partners we had have gone, there is quite literally no provision in my area any more. No-one is working to address this because all management focus is upon trying to make the basic supervision work again. It is a creeping paralysis.

******
NPS will no doubt need to consider purchasing such services from CRC, another increased cost.

******
Working Links gets a vast amount of money from the government to assist people back to work. If they use some of this funding assisting offenders referred to their CRCs to gain employment, then surely they'll be getting paid twice? Once for the employment 'outcome' and again for a CRC 'outcome'? And the amazing thing is that it's all been government funded in the first place!

******
There is unquestionably a view in this Government that everyone's 'criminogenic needs' are employment and accommodation. This view has clearly been transferred wholesale to the 'newbies' and they are consequently throwing everything into these areas. My experience is that many of our most vulnerable cases are not yet capable of employment or even of holding a tenancy with all the accompanying issues like budgeting, managing utilities etc etc. It's all too simplistic and amounts to one of those dumb approaches based on common sense when 'common sense' is anathema to evidence-based interventions.

******
Working Links 'park' offenders because they have complex needs and so take up a lot of time and effort to find work. An offender applied online to a well known chain and uploaded his CV on their site. He went to WL where the adviser asked him to take his CV by hand to the same company. He explained he had already applied 2 wks ago. He did as he was told and at all 4 locations was told to apply online. Waste of time. There are ETE experts working in Probation who understand their needs and are able to give expert advice with very good results. These contracts will come to an end soon. Offenders will be referred to the WP and surely it is double funding for WL if they get paid for results in CRC and Work Prog?

******
Every statement from Ministers about TR has muddied the waters for the CRCs - constant references to "providing services to offenders". Grayling's ludicrous ideas about working with local slum landlords, and so on, have simply fed the idea that Probation clients are simply widgets to be worked on. Take one 'service user', add enough intervention, and hey presto, you have a shiny new compliant citizen.

The Government evidently believes that rehabilitation is something that you can do to someone, not that they achieve themselves. My CRC's TTG plans involve workshops on accommodation, ETE etc. run on a rolling basis in prison, with a few of these fabled mentors chucked in for the more difficult cases. All well and good - and then the prison gates open and reality arrives. CRCs will put their efforts in the wrong place, achieve nothing but their narrowly-framed targets, and still be paid £millions for it.

******
As an SPO I'm slightly disappointed with the tarring us all with the same negative brush approach. I believe 'some' of the concepts of TR have great potential but I also recognise the many flaws and associated risks. I am honest with my staff about my views whilst still presenting the NPS speech. I try to keep us focused on managing risk and reducing reoffending in our own units. I fully support staff to challenge appropriately, including taking out grievances so that we are heard. I also regularly challenge and question decisions and processes, so please stop deciding we are all NOMS brown noses.

******
Hear hear. As a former SPO I also was on the picket line, tried to support staff, was a union rep and everyone knew what I privately thought about TR. I was never delusional enough to think I could do the job I wanted to do instead of the one I was being paid to, so that is why I chose to seek alternative employment. The notion that all managers never said a thing against TR is just conspiracy theories gone bonkers.

******
Sorry but I cannot think of a single SPO in my area who thinks and behaves as you do. I honestly wish I could. In my area behaviour has simply deteriorated into "do as I say you have to get on board now" but then I am from the former JFDI trust..

******
Most of the activists in my area are SPOs. The anti-manager tone is not universal and can, at times, be a cliché.

******
Less anti manager perhaps than anti managerialism.....but Kudos if where you are most of the activists are SPOs. I would be interested to know what activist means in your context? Sadly I no longer have any respect for the vast majority of managers in my area.

******
There is now a vast gulf and considerable mistrust between staff and managers. It is sad but there we are. Really, this occurred prior to TR and is perhaps not recoverable IMO.

******
I am an SPO. I do not and I doubt that I ever will agree with TR, accept it, believe it will work or feel any less angry at the decimation of my profession. I am Probation too. I am also in no more of a position to give up my job on a point of principle than, no doubt, almost everyone else irrespective of grade. I voice my opinions. I support my team to the best of my ability. I do this, as best I can and with integrity. For some that will not be good enough, both those I supervise and for those that manage me.

******
In their desperation, the primes will subcontract out to existing agencies working within the CJS who have not provided value for money or been effective in the past.

******
They all want a slice of the pie and in the race to get it, will not work together in the best interests of the clients. Consequently, Joe Bloggs gets offered the same thing by multiple agencies, meets lots of different people with false promises and no idea of the complex needs he has, and fails to deliver anything effective, scuttling off into the background because of a failure of understanding the individual and then blaming them for a lack of motivation, leaving them with a feeling that yet again there is lots of talk but no action. Whilst there are some good individual members within these partner agencies, their company ethos, a total lack of understanding and lack of co-ordination of services, means that there is an awful lot of money wasted which could have been better spent if they weren't in competition with one another.

******
Working Links have not got their supply chain organised yet. No info on TTG apart from giving PSOs a 'wonderful opportunity' to work in the prisons for a few months to set this up. How can WL be given a contract to run something as important as this when they have no plan or staff to run the service, nor do they know how Probation CRCs are run at the moment? This was all said at the briefing in Wales yesterday. It beggars belief. They will set up working parties to look at what is good practice and how things can be improved over the coming months. Current contracts with Partners will be ending soon, so getting rid of experienced specialists who have worked with offenders over many years.

******
The lack of supply chain is a consequence NOT on the concept of outsourcing but of Grayling and the MoJ's approach to it. It is because the timescales were reckless and ludicrous that the work necessary to prepare was unable to be completed in the time available. This is not a failing of the bidders, although they are complicit, it is a failure of the SoS and his ministry.

******
It is exactly a failing of the bidders as they err, bid to meet the contractual obligation by the specified date err 01 May.....caveat emptor.

******
Staff being disciplined for sickness; capability and discipline all on the increase in our CRC - are they deliberately trying to over-work people so that they slip up and fall foul of these policies? It certainly looks that way from where I'm standing.

******
Prison vetting can take months to clear new employees but that won't be too much of a problem at my establishment as there isn't anywhere for the new CRC workers to be based yet anyway. And as community PSOs are directed in, prison PSOs are waiting to find where we will be directed to in the community....

******
Man in pub tells me that MOJ are making sure that vetting is being given priority. The cynical part of me would suggest that it will only reduce the time taken from six months to five. Man in pub also claims that there will be a tacit agreement that bank accounts may be monitored for 'suspicious activity', likely due to the amount of drugs allegedly being brought into prison by staff.

******
I do not see how TTG staff can routinely have their bank accounts monitored merely as a blanket response to concerns that drugs may be taken into prison. It is not just cause legally and impossible to undertake on such a scale. Can this be verified as accurate information?

******
I have always said that Probation Officers are trained from day one to recognise bullshit when they hear it. We smile and nod but, when the chips are down, we recognise the smell.

******
The thing is, prior to the split, in probation we knew exactly what our job was and we got on with it - we didn't require a lot of pizzazz or expensive 'pampering' to motivate us. I for one am struggling with what is now being put forward as a fundamentally different model of working (in the CRCs) when a) no concrete evidence is being provided that the structure is in place (or has even been conceived) to deliver said model and b) our core role hasn't actually changed - that is, to supervise those who have been given a sentence in the criminal courts and which comes with statutorily enforceable requirements for the Probationer. How this then will equate to being on a 'customer journey' is completely beyond me TBH. Suspect next we'll be being directed to thank the Probationer at the end of their Order/licence for allowing us to share their journey......pure psychobabble.

******
I have to say that one of the factors that is making me seriously consider a change of career is the extent to which I am finding all of this increasingly embarrassing. Emperors New Clothes doesn't go anywhere near it. Chaplin's The Great Dictator maybe? It just gets sillier and sillier.

******
In a private prison this morning and it is clear that staff on the ground are no wiser about TTG than we are - it might be a May start but not in 2015 or if they do it will be usual headlong rush just to parrot that it's been done with no thought about the consequences.

******
And what about the ORA briefings? Clearly written by someone who hasn't been anywhere near a service user in many a good year. Just the sort of shambles in which the private sector will run rings around contract managers.

******
I'm sure Sodexo, Interserve or Purple futures would happily agree to enter a contract with a private sector landlord, where they agree to pay the weekly rent on a property, knowing they'd then be responsible for collecting that rent from the client! Or maybe not!

******
Today's post just goes to show how little Selous and Grayling know about prisons, probation and offenders. I hardly think getting local authorities to be "more transparent" about social housing is going to solve a single accommodation problem. Our local street homeless prevention team who we refer clients being released from custody if they don't have anywhere to live, is useless at helping source accommodation in the private sector. If you are lucky enough to get into the town's only homeless hostel, you spend at least a month there in conditions worse than you would be living in in jail and surrounded by more drugs and crime than you see in jail.

Then if you are lucky enough to be thought worthy enough by the mini Hitler who "helps" people move on into their own rented accommodation, you will end up in some damp, flea infested pit and told to suck it up and be grateful for it. If you turn a place down, even if it is completely unsuitable (say for example its on the third floor of a block with no lift and you have mobility problems so you can't climb stairs) you are immediately blacklisted and not offered another property. Unless apparently you are willing to pay a "fee" to this individual, who will then immediately find you somewhere halfway decent. Unless Grayling and Selous are prepared to tackle stuff like this, the accommodation issue simply won't go away.

******
Universal Credit and the bedroom tax has vastly reduced the number of landlords that are willing to let to those on benefits. The number willing to let is further reduced if you're leaving custody or on licence. If you also have addiction or mental health issues (and many of the 12month and under cohort will have those issues), the number is practically zero. The only housing that will be available will be that in such poor condition that the landlord can't let it to anybody else, or in an area where no-one wants to live, typically areas where there's high levels of unemployment and anti social behaviour.

These are not the right variables to help keep someone from reoffending or providing a stable social foundation. In fact in my opinion, it's a recipe for the creation of ghettos, where the socially deprived, unable and criminally orientated are all lumped together and left to get on with it. It will promote crime rather then reduce it.

******
I just read a twitter conversation that CRCs in the NorthWest have been instructed to complete ISPs within 10 days. This just shows that PF does not have a clue. There have been instructions that we are not allowed to use Professional Judgement for late sentence plans and I'm just at a loss as to how this is meant to work? Somebody has suggested that a 'plan' is all that's needed and PF will be introducing an Oasys replacement in due course but for now we are stuck with it. This job is getting more and more like knitting with soup every day.

******
And BGSW. It's a target linked to the CRCs getting paid so I would think that a few missed targets and capability meetings will be the order of the day, no matter what your workload is like.

******
Just make sure that you put in the comments at the end of Oasys that plan completed after only x amounts of meetings, to hit targets, and may not be reflective of RISK! Make sure that the RISK part goes in. It might not be much, but at least if the sh*t hits the fan you can always highlight that your assessment aimed at hitting a target, rather than anything else.

******
Oh well, that's me up the shoot then. I haven't done a supervision plan (nor barely any Oasys) since the split last year owing to my unreasonably high caseload which (despite my continued raising of the matter at all managerial levels since June 1st) is still not resolved. Now the work is cash linked I suspect something will have to change - either Working Links sort out the woeful staffing situation or (more likely I suspect) I'll be shown the door, for failing to get with the zeitgeist. Sigh......

******
Help! I have just returned to LDU work and been told all ISPs target is 15 days, I'm NPS so high ROSH cases. How can target in NPS be 15 but in CRC 10 days? Is this correct does anyone know please?

******
Maybe cos CRC are low/med. I know I've completed ISPs on having only seen people once. But ISPs are only that, 'initial' on the information to hand, but the problem is if the ISPs are sparce it means spending more time a few weeks down the line doing a review to make it more fitting and who has time to be doing reviews on top of ISPs and Terminations? - I know I haven't.

******
I cannot confirm NSP ISP target dates but can confirm CRC is 10 days - in fact in our CRC we are being told they have to be completed, signed and locked by OM by day 8 - not 10 days from initial interview so if the client does not attend arranged appointment - clock does not start ticking until they do. It can still be tough if you have a number of ISPs and Terminations coming together, which is often the case.

******
The thing that really throws my workload off kilter is the custody releases - allocating SPO has no idea when she's giving me 3 new cases that I've also someone being released so in-effect I have 4 ISPs to do plus terminations - as my caseload is so big it's not unusual to need to be doing a termination every couple of weeks.

******
ISP target is 10 days from first appointment. If service user fails first appointment clock does not start ticking. I keep a note of a sentence plan drawn up on paper and record it in delius. It's not my fault if CRCs have not found a way of recording this target. Remember, the target is for a Sentence Plan, not an OASys ISP. I'm covered! :-)

******
Solution will be universal ISPs, bland generalisations of one kind or another. Superficial defaults to meet targets. That is prison service culture. Pretend, pretend, pretend.

******
NPS in Wales all ISPs to be completed within 5 working days of commencement of order or release. If we are lucky we have met them once to go through the 20 page useless induction pack which simply repeats itself over and over again without gaining any useful information. It's even been suggested we should start doing custody ISPs within 5 days of sentence - good luck booking that next day prison visit!