Courts
There have been many past posts about the impact of TR changes upon the probation court role and the production of court reports. A colleague PO told me this week about her court team manager informing the team that their purpose was “purely to assist the court with its sentencing exercise nothing more”. This was in response to a discussion at their team meeting following staff raising concerns about criticism from the LDUs about the assessments made in reports prepared by court officers. They were told that it is up to the officer who gets allocated the case in the LDU to get the information they need, not court officers to provide this.
This team was also told that their priority is to deliver 90% of reports as oral reports with a time allocation of 90 minutes (interview, delivery in court plus completion of the CAT and RSR). A colleague PSO told me “we are now working like battery hens churning out report after report”.
The impact of this is being felt in LDU teams, both NPS and CRC and it is not without a significant financial cost to each ‘business’. NPS colleagues can no longer rely upon information from court colleagues’ assessment to complete Initial Supervision Plans and have to gather even basic information for assessments that previously would have been completed by CDOs. This results in either poor quality assessments to meet the ISP deadline, or extra pressure and time constraints on case managers to get the information for a good assessment and risk missing ISP targets. It could even mean duplication of work as OASys will need reviewing again when you do eventually get information which would have been routine in a good PSR.
If you think this doesn’t matter, I can assure you that a colleague interviewed for an SFO investigation very recently told me the focus was upon her OASys assessment. It appears to me that we are being forced to work to new lower standards but will be measured, should something go wrong, on the previous higher standards.
The CRC team has the same issues of course but they have another dimension too. They have concerns about sentencing not being targeted to suit their business model. I understand representations have already been made to the court managers regarding proposals given in reports. A business model has been constructed to show how ORA sentences should be as the CRC now operates in the world of income minus costs, to survive. It appears that the CDOs have their part to play in the viability of the CRC.
There are too many unintended consequences of TR to measure but, my concern is that all of our jobs, CRC and NPS, are inextricably linked to the court process and it was always thus. What seems to be happening is a change in focus from a cohesive system flowing from the courts to a system of probation court staff being instructed to deliver piecemeal work disconnected from practice.
You will note I have not mentioned the client/service user/offender. That is because in this process they are now just the raw material of TR….. aren’t they?
A PO
Couldn't agree more. The lack of information provided by PSRs means CRC POs have to undertake their our own checks re. domestic violence & child protection. Whilst waiting for the information to come back, no work is being done to protect said partner or child. When raised with managers, response is "If there is an SFO we're covered because there is no way of us knowing before". My response: " So it's OK that partner dies because we're covered? What the fuck?!?". Just how it is now.
ReplyDeleteOver in NPS: POs can check domestic callouts and child protection but the info won't be back to inform the court report. So what do we do with the info when it does come back? What if we are off sick or moved offices or no longer in the role? It's not good for important info to go through a third party.
Best process would be for NPS to make enquiries at earliest opportunity and for CRC to have a central e-mail for all info to go to to make sure it is received. This would mean NPS taking time to do 'work on behalf of CRC' and CRC not burying its head in the sand.
Not sure I can see any of this happening. People will die but it's OK because the blame won't be able to be pinned on anyone so it's all good ☺
The statement 'we're covered' will only wash once with sfo's, victim groups, politicians and the media- as the lessons learned from the first have clearly made no difference and the inquiries will just go on an on, with no regard for victims or perpetrators. Ten years, or more ago Probation managers insisted practitioners made checks on all those our clients live with, due to some very nasty and tragic deaths of children in the same household as our service users and there are parallels with social workers being pilleried for not getting over the front door to find out who lives there! It is an utter disgrace that current practice effectively ignores all that has gone before. I am ashamed to be part of it!
DeletePerhaps each office, CRC and NPS need to highlight concerns in writing and pass up the chain of command. Since it seems to be all about accountability this might be a way of getting them to take action. If we've highlighted the issues formally senior management won't be 'in the clear' when the inevitable happens. Might make them sort this out.
DeleteWithout wishing to understate the impact of TR on court reports, the dumbing-down of reports started years ago with a steady decline in full reports and the increase in orals and FDRs. The senior managers in probation trusts pushed these changes hard and were indifferent to the loss of quality. And yet before this dumbing-down there had been great emphasis on how a report could only be produced via a full OASys and in some cases – domestic violence in particular - two interviews were mandatory. This was the practice standard, it was evidence-based practice, consistent with the best probation values. And then all gets dropped like a hot potato as the expedited report becomes the norm. When any organisation can do such somersaults in service delivery, credibility as to core values and practices is destroyed, and you find it difficult not to conclude that it's so-called values are shallow and opportunistic. The workplace becomes a crude bureaucracy.
DeleteNever thought they could be dumbed down any more but they are. One CRC PO who raised significant concerns regarding information coming to light after case allocated to CRC which involved sexual offence and family history of sexual offences told by CRC Manager - your job is not to assess risk but to assess need and not to go looking and digging for information regarding risk. Our future - public at risk - we have to say NOT ON OUR WATCH.
DeleteThis mirrors the London CAT CRIT CIT experiment of about 15 years ago. It was found that no part of the system took ownership of anything but their bit. Seamless it was not. Now we have that situation on steroids. No part of the system cares at all about any other part. The Courts need to get the report done fast and so will roll them off. If its expensive and mistakes need to be corrected, well that comes out of some other sods budget (And in a lot of cases out of some Other Agencies budget) so screw em. This time though nobody in in a position to oversee the whole process. I suspect that its falling apart faster than last time. But I don't know cos I am just a footsoldier. I don't think the generals know either cos somebody has put them in two separate bunkers, burnt their maps and torn out the telephone lines.
ReplyDeletehttps://news.vice.com/article/poor-alabamians-sue-private-probation-company-profiting-off-their-debt?utm_source=vicenewstwitter
ReplyDeleteDebtors' prisons may be a medieval legacy, but a series of recent lawsuits have drawn attention to the fact that the practice of incarcerating people unable to pay fines and fees remains widespread in present-day America.
DeleteLast month, when residents of the St. Louis, Missouri suburbs of Ferguson and Jennings sued the municipalities over their use of traffic tickets and court fines to raise revenue at the cost of poor residents, officials and activists noted that the scheme was not limited to those towns, nor to public entities.
The issue resurfaced again today after three Alabama residents filed a lawsuit accusing a private, for-profit company contracted by a local city to collect traffic fines and other citations, of violating federal racketeering laws by extorting payments from residents and threatening them with jail over their inability to pay.
The lawsuit, filed against Judicial Correction Services (JCS), a major private probation service, and its local manager, also accuses the city of Clanton of allowing the racket to exist by entering into a illegal contract with JCS, which works with more than 100 municipalities in Alabama and several more across the country.
JCS and the city of Clanton could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday.
The company — which essentially operates as a debt-collecting agency on behalf of the city — required people unable to pay their full fines upfront to pay additional fees of $40 — paid to the company directly — for each month they were in arrears. When people couldn't pay, JCS threatened to throw them in jail — and on a few occasions did so.
What the company didn't tell their debtors, is that they had a right to have those fees waived or their payments lowered. JCS had a form to request this adjustment, but never told clients about it. The city tacitly allowed the scheme to operate, the lawsuit alleges, and actually enabled it by signing a contract with JCS, without first holding a public bid, and by allowing the company to charge probation fees — both violations of Alabama law.
New case that arrived for induction this week with no information-I couldn't even find out what her sentence was. I gently asked if she had her Court Order with her-NO!
ReplyDeleteShe told me her case was adjourned for 3 weeks and was given a report appointment on the day of sentencing and due to transport delays was 1/2 hour late for her interview. She was very upset at being given 20 minutes to relate her story and her frustration was stated to the Court in her report, again providing resentment based on a feeling of injustice.
I gave an empathetic ear, but this demonstrates the complete failure to recognise the impact in fragmenting our service!
New case allocated CRC - Looked for PSR not one, looked for pre-cons, none, looked for CPS none. Looked at RSR - ONLY document available - guess what - undefined was the answer against the majority of questions. Explanation - no NPS in court at time of sentence. How can a case be allocated to CRC without at the very least the full RSR being completed to accurately define the score. Surely if NPS are not in court, then an appt with NPS should be arranged post-sentence to complete the necessary paperwork - PS No CAS either. PPS: This is not a criticism of NPS colleagues but of the system. However, what I don't think NPS staff understand is the impact on CRC staff is that this could have a significant impact on PBRs which ultimately is going to cost NOT JUST JOBS but potentially LIVES.
DeleteTwo cases in two days where NPS have contacted previous OMs (shafted to CRC) for information regarding current or previously known cases. In first instance NPS staff told the individual has been supervised for 18 months and failed to engaged in any intervention to address specific needs related to offending but still a CO being considered; the second the individual has never completed a CO - each has resulted in multiple breaches before revocation has been the ultimate outcome - you guessed CO being proposed. I'm sorry, I'm all for wanting to help individuals but where it is clear they do not want to engage with either their COs or intervention to address their specific needs - why set up the individual or CRC staff to fail.
DeleteHonestly this happens with NPS allocations too...only the cases are high ROSH...I'm really NOT saying NPS cases 'trump' CRC cases before anyone responds that way, I just want to say we are all in the same rubbish boat. I also really feel for court staff 'cos who came into this job to work doing oral reports all day?
DeleteImagine this one....sentenced on oral report to an ATR, but err, the client had been suspended from his previous ATR for err, assaulting the alcohol keyworker yup TR works!
DeletePS not blaming the CDO, don't think I could have done any different in an hour....we are relying on the clients to tell us this vital information now and why would they?
So sad to read today's blog. The bulk of my probation career was spent in the courts, providing sentencers, clients and colleagues alike with as good a service as possible. Daily liaison was inevitble with sentencers (judges or magistrates), clerks, defence & CPS lawyers, social services, police, youth offending, other probation areas - even with the media circus when higher profile cases were being dealt with. It was a challenging but satisfying career - and by proactively managing the work in the courts meant that, in every sense, we were on top of our game, and we were very rarely caught short.
ReplyDeleteSounds like its become an Kafka-esque nightmare.
Although I have a basic knowledge of the works of Franz Kafka, out of curiosity,looked up the wiki analysis of the man -
DeleteHis stories are filled 'with the themes and archetypes of alienation,of physical and psychological brutality, parent-child conflict, characters on a terrifying quest, labyrinths of bureaucracy, and mystical transformations.'
Yes, much of that describes TR extremely well... it even has that last word in the title - a true mystery -aka nightmare - of TRANSFORMATION, with staff on a 'terrifying mission' to make sense of it all.
Well said 9.24.
ps - the wiki definition of Kafkaesque -
Delete- 'used to describe situations in which bureaucracies overpower people - often in a surreal, nightmarish milieu, which evokes feelings of senselessness, disorientation and helplessness, characters often lacking a clear course of action to escape a labyrinthine situation.'
Recognise yourself, anyone?
If you want to experience a Kafkaesque situation, try applying to leave the service and accessing your pension through Shared Services. The different departments don't appear to communicate with each other and the whole process is a stressful nightmare.
DeleteThe above post describes the process with alarming precision.
" They have concerns about sentencing not being targeted to suit their business model".
ReplyDeleteIs it now the case that private enterprise with no experience of, or no concern in other then profit, will significantly influence law and justice to shape itself around business models?
Greater Manchester Police was more interested in denigrating the characters of young sexual abuse victims rather than investigating their allegations. GMP has apologised, but there will be no misconduct charges. There is a similar story with South Yorkshire and Thames Valley failed victims in the Oxford area. Reflecting back on yesterday's blog comments about 'senior leaders' one wonders what is the point of them if, after all the years of supposedly raised consciousness about the evils of child abuse, there is still much police behaviour that is marked by stereotypical and indifferent thinking. You have to wonder if much as really changed since Jimmy Saville’s heyday and whether Life on Mars portrays the police as they are not as they were. And much the same could be said about other organisations and their failings, despite all the senior leaders. Heads never roll, they just move on...No accountability, just big pension pots. And nothing will change until there is accountability.
ReplyDeleteHillsbro' - officer in charge at the time now says, "with hindsight", he wasn't up to the role and told lies. He could have owned up before now but... Same goes for anyone & everyone else regarded as "senior leaders" who have lied & covered up.
DeleteIt took the Hillsborough liar Duckenfield 26 years to confess his lie about opening the gates, content to let the lie fester that it was the fans who 'stormed' the gate. He was apparently 'in denial'. It was a cover-up by the police, not just Duckenfield but his chief constable as well. No cock-up, a conspiracy to suppress the truth. And this is what 'senior leaders' do when the heat in on, when incompetency and negligence is about to be exposed.
DeleteNetnipper , I completely agree with this , Duckenfield gave the command to open the gate - he didn't do it himself , therefore over 26 years more police knew about this situation , without a doubt many police officers knew the truth - so why no comment?? I see today an officer is speaking out only a year after leaving the service about child grooming so if he is able to do that why couldn't Hillsbro officers do the same? Likely they were warned off by very senior people, threatened and bullied?? I don't know but can only speculate.
DeleteThere is something rotten about our society , where the powerful people sh*t on the powerless and the poor.
Duckenfield blamed others and within our own work we are likely to be blamed for the poorest processes, procedures and policies of probation. Beware everybody, cover your backs and keep personal records - the establishment has a poor record in looking after files!!
I said this the other day.The reporter and producer that exposed Saville have lost their Jobs because their senior bosses at the BBC did not want the scandal to come out because of their role supporting Saville for over 30 years.
ReplyDeleteThe focus of corruption should be on senior management and their political masters and the bureaucratic nightmare they have created to protect their machinations. The creativity of front-line people is sacrificed at the halter of bureaucratic managerialism and now profit. The madness will continue until they are exposed and defeated, in the end we will have to fight them.
Papa
But for now just continue as best you can to work for "them" and make a living enforcing "their" decisions.
DeleteLOL
Did Reporters and producers lose their jobs over Saville? I read that some were 'moved sideways' but no actual dismissals. The director-general Entwistle resigned over the fiasco, though he walked with £450,000 of licence payers money. At least, though, Entwistle fell on his sword. Very rare for senior leaders in probation to carry any cans. Scott was forced out in London following the Sonnex review but that was more about protecting 'under the radar' Jack Straw from the fallout and his share of the blame.
DeleteAccording to Nick Cohen in the Observer both the producer and the reporter who broke the Saville story will never work for the BBC again.
ReplyDeletePapa
I don't doubt that, but they maybe they don't want to work for the BBC again. But they were at least feted by their peers.
Delete'Liz Mackean and Meirion Jones, who worked on Newsnight's spiked Jimmy Savile investigation, have won scoop of the year at the London Press Club awards, sharing the prize with two others involved in exposing the late Jim'll Fix It presenter's sexual abuse of children.'
Liz McKean is an excellent journalist. In the not too distant past I had first hand experience of her working with a very troubled client on my caseload. She and her team were utterly professional, thorough & especially meticulous about clarifying (& protecting) sources. Well done, Liz.
DeleteExcellent blog and it mirrors exactly what is happening in my area (DTV)
ReplyDeleteIt really is all going wrong from the courts - the blame must lie with management, staff have no discretion just instruction these days and yes the term battery hens is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteCourts - where PSOs and POs do the same job for very different pay, but for how long?
ReplyDeleteCan you please publish this in response to Annon 19:37
DeleteA woman down the pub told me that in Wales PO's are being withdrawn from Courts - only PSO's will remain - let's just see how that all works then shall we. Pay - in real terms our salaries have decreased - salaries have not kept pace with inflation. I believe salary scales will blur and merge - and in one direction of course - downwards.
there could be an argument against having POs in magistrates courts - I mean POs aren't even doing proper checks with agencies and so court PSOs could probably arrive at a proposal just as well as a PO. Thinking of the salary difference it makes financial sense.
DeleteSome areas haven't had PO's in court for years.
DeleteAllegations of bullying continue to rock the Ministry of Justice.
ReplyDeleteReports are emerging that the Head of NOMS Michael Spurr conducted a so called "dirty office" protest after suffering months of bullying. Despite denials, a source close to the Ministry of Justice claims bullying is rife in Petty France. " Its been like it for a few months now. Grayling likes people to know who's boss. I don't know why but he started picking on Michael. It started with making fun of him in meetings, and forcing him to wear a spinning bow tie when he went on office visits. I guess he was close to the edge when he had to appear on the telly a few weeks back after that when he heard someone had spliced together bits of the interview and posted it on youtube he went mental. You should watch it it's spliced to make him look like a fish 10 mins of his mouth opening and closing. Cruel really"
why isn't HMIP doing an inspection about Court work?
ReplyDeleteour office experience of the courts is less than complimentary. Most of them couldn't carry a caseload in a bucket.
ReplyDeleteOur nps management team couldn't manage to break wind.
DeleteAnother nps spo ( deliberate lower case) trotted out the same, reports are purely to assist the Courts with sentencing statement this week too. Their masters must be so proud.
ReplyDeleteNo comments on the Prison service pay awards ? somewhat different to Probation . Especially for managers who are assessed as outstanding, assessed by another manager evidently, Has anyone ever come across a manager who would tell their manager that they are useless ?
ReplyDeleteWe've been split into teams, cases transferred in a week. Next week we start the new working arrangements. Only problem is we have not been told how we will be working. I thought the last year was bad, just when you think it cant get any worse it does. Apparently every service user that has children will be checked for Social Services involvement. Social Services already in meltdown and must be against human rights. Whilst safeguarding children Is paramount, because someone offends does not automatically mean he/she is a bad parent.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, 00:08 There are world wide growing concerns about children being removed, some are using the word kidnapped, by UK ,so called Childrens Services. The non offending parents rights are being disregarded, are they asked about their or their childrens details being bandied about ? do they give their permission ?
DeleteA superficial check in every case is simply indicative of the job being about back covering rather than actually doing the job, piece of paper, email sent job done. It is despicable
For the last 2 years we've been under management direction to take names & dob of ALL children (birth, step, etc) of ALL cases (& their current partners) and check with social services "triage" (ain't that a sweet name for it?) to see if they're known, current or otherwise. Any case refusing to provide those details or give consent is referred to "triage" for a check on the adult's name & address in any event. Well, you never know, do you? They've been caught drink-driving, they've already proved they can wilfully break the law, they're likely to be liars as well, they probably starve their children to pay for their booze, they probably beat them in a drunken rage, no self-control you see, no discipline, just think of those poor babies, etc, etc, etc... "AND how would YOU feel if YOU failed to make those checks? What would the SFO say about YOU? Now get on that 'phone..."
DeleteFear is the key.
We've just been given some 'training' as the above practices have now been introduced in our area. An interesting split in viewpoint was revealed - scenario: female comes to probation looking for her partner with child who is a bit dirty and hasnt got a coat on - its January - what would you do? Consensus amongst most PSO's was to ring social services immediately, with most PO's going Why? - and highlighting the many assumptions being made based on too little information. The usual guilt inducing rhetoric was trotted out by the trainers as per above 'how would you feel...on your watch...etc etc. Having recently watched Social Services drive a Hercules tank into someones life (Claire's law disclosure at their place of work so the whole world knew) only to 'drive out' again a couple of weeks later and close the case (so, there WAS no immediate risk to the family then,eh?) this blanket approach to regarding everyone as a risk will only cause more harm than good. Also, our local Childrens Services offices are becoming a little shirty about all the extra assessment work we are passing their way, and the trainers were unable to confirm that a new Service Level Agreement was in place to cover this newly imposed role of ours. Luckily I'm pretty immune to attempts to try and make me feel guilty about what I do or dont do as a PO.
DeleteDeb