Guest Blog 27

Hi

Hope you are well. Just thought I'd drop you a quick update. 

Well, as you know, a lot of POs have bailed out and gone back to NPS. It would seem there are now PO shortages in Xxxxxxxxxx, and Xxxxxxx LDU has been identified as having the capacity to send POs across to plug gaps. If no-one volunteers, people will be directed. How stressful! Not only have we been booted out of our service, we could now be booted out of our LDUs as well! Morale is really low. I don't know how offices will survive. For example, Xxxxxxx only has 4 x POs and if two are directed, that would only leave 2 plus 3 PSOs. 

Anyone who is directed will be walking into a whole new caseload of unknowns and will probably - as ever - be expected to hit the ground running. Those in offices where the POs are directed from will have to pick up all of the cases they leave behind. The workload weighting tool means nothing - it doesn't take account of the extra time it takes to do everything these days, the fact that Positive Pathways has to be done with every case not subject to an accredited programme, etc, etc. NAPO doesn't seem to care what's going on - the feeling in CRCs is that they seem more focused on NPS (it says something that most of our Union reps applied to go back to NPS, doesn't it?).

Since the introduction of the Offender Rehabilitation Act on 1st Feb, it would seem that even solicitors don't know what they are doing. One solicitor - mentioning no names but you would know him - was recently heard to comment, "Thank goodness the offence was committed before 1 Feb...." You may know that the ORA is the Act that introduces supervision for all offenders post custody, including those sentenced to under 12 mths. The way it works is, for example, if someone is given a 6 mths custodial sentence, they'd do 3 mths in prison, 3 mths on licence and a further 9 mths under supervision with probation. There's supposed to be a sentence plan in place before everyone is released. Well, we'll see......

NPS are responsible for reviewing all offenders and then allocating them to either NPS or CRS to be managed. They have to do a request transfer on Delius if they are allocated to a CRC. We found that we were getting transfer requests for those offenders who are sentenced to under 12 mths custody but whose offences were committed before 1 Feb. They said we might like to work with these people on a voluntary basis. Well, I think not - we don't need the extra work and there's no money in that, is there? I think that NPS staff simply don't know what they are doing and are just requesting to transfer everyone so that the CRC staff can determine later whether they should be supervised, or not. Our admin staff have been instructed not to accept requests for transfer on such cases, so they will bounce back to NPS and they'll have to start looking at cases properly.

Courts are not putting results onto Delius correctly. For example, an offender committing an offence of Drink Driving in December was sentenced and court staff put one of the Order Requirements on the system as "Specified Local Activity - Alcohol" (correct for post 1 Feb offences, incorrect for pre 1st Feb offences). It should have been put on the system as DIDs - a request had to be made to court staff to rectify this. It's happening a lot.

PSRs are still rubbish. I just got allocated a young man who had kicked the door when his partner locked him out. Its his first time with probation. Yes, there had been police call outs previously re arguments between him and his partner, but no charges. He is now subject to an order with supervision, UPW and domestic violence programme. He self harmed last week because he felt overwhelmed and depressed. So this guy now has a sick note and his GP has said he isn't fit for work or to be in group situations at present. So this is going to be complicated..

I absolutely dread making any kind of application to court - eg for removal of a requirement or for breach, as the NPS Enforcement Team seem to knock everything back. Here's an example - offender working on a temporary basis so referral to programme delayed as his work hours prevented attendance. He was then offered permanent employment and it's now too late for him to do a programme as he has maintained this. Application was made for removal of programme requirement. NPS knocked it back - they want a letter from his employer confirming his hours (even though payslips submitted for evidence). Also, despite having a signed copy of consent from the offender to this course of action, NPS staff want him to go to court for the hearing. He'll have to ask for time off and will lose a day's pay (he only gets just over £200 pw). He might even lose his job. Madness.

I had a first breach knocked back because I had asked that it be dealt with by way of imposition of the ReEngagement Programme - I had said UPW etc wasn't appropriate, but I hadn't spoke about a curfew. (He already has a residence requirement). So, if someone isn't coming in for appointments, let's curfew him and keep him at home? Mad. Of course, all this to-ing and fro-ing of paperwork takes time and adds to the stress and creates bad feeling. For every breach we have to go through all options in our report, like we would in a PSR. If an Order is revoked and resentenced then we fail one of our targets so we daren't ask for that.....

The other mad thing is that we aren't going to get a copy of the Order in future. I have had many examples where requirements have been missed on Delius or put on incorrectly. Or where things have been missed off the Order and it's had to be re-issued. Well, it'll be difficult to check now, won't it? Also, when doing breach, the court used to reject paperwork if the offences listed on your paperwork didn't correspond to those detailed on the copy of the Order. You may have had examples yourself where the PSR has dealt with 3 or 4 matters and only one or two are shown on the Order. I don't know how this is going to work - we are going to have to trust that court staff put things on properly (as in the example above, we already have instances of things not being put on correctly).

Well, that's enough for now, I think!

Best wishes.

PS

Hi again. Management are making decisions this week on who should move office - I will def be in the frame as I have been here for years, and have never put myself forward for promotional moves because of famlly care responsibilities near to work and because I felt I couldn't take on any more and didn't need the stress. I'm now thinking I might as well have applied to NPS if I'm going to be moved anyway. Don't know how it's going to pan out but not good for anyone. I hear now that PSO's are going to be moved into the prisons - likely to be those living nearest. Of course then we'll be left with the problem of having to move staff about to plug the gaps that they leave. It just gets worse.