Tuesday 19 January 2016

Lets Look at E3 (3)

Chapter 2 Courts

2.1 What does the model look like now? 

Following Transforming Rehabilitation the NPS has continued to provide a service to the courts but has felt the pressure of the new demands of providing a service to the CRCs and in particular the introduction of the Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) tool and Case Allocation System (CAS) processes. Changes to speed up court processes have also impacted on expectations of probation. 

Whilst the former trusts all provided court services (as per the specifications), the NPS inherited many different ways of delivering them and a wide range of costs. In some former trusts the work was largely delivered on the day in court by PSOs whereas others relied heavily on POs preparing reports away from court. The range of what is delivered (SDR, FDR, Oral), differing court team grade mix and variations in cost per report are significant. 

The E3 Court delivery proposal originates in the work led by the NPS Deputy Director for Courts and the Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group, to create a national model for court work delivery following the creation of the NPS. 

2.2 What do we want the future model to look like? 
The main objective of this set of proposals is to take the best of what is done in the NPS and to create a court delivery service aligned to the courts reform programme (and the NPS contractual requirements) which is known for its quality, reliability and value for money. 

We will continue to offer the same services to courts but do so using our resources more efficiently and effectively, and in a more consistent manner across England and Wales.

This will mean dedicated court teams doing the work that flows from their court, delivering as many reports as possible on the day, mainly delivered by appropriately trained PSOs. Reports will be delivered to a consistently high quality and in a format commensurate with their complexity, with SDRs reserved for those including assessments of dangerousness.

CRCs will receive their allocations on time, enforcement and report writing practice will be consistent across the NPS and variations will reflect only local geography. 

The Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group wanted to explore using the model for report delivery in Wales as a potential national approach. There is evidence that it offers excellent performance with on the day reports nearing 90%, largely written by PSOs. This suggests excellent value for money and a good fit with Transforming Summary Justice. Colleagues in Wales are satisfied that the quality of reports is good. 

The Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group also wished to explore the model for enforcement practice in London which manages enforcement through a hub supported by dedicated administrators. This was in response to the need to create a national model to replace a variety of legacy trust arrangements. The driver for this was the view that this would lead to improved quality and efficiency and probably a reduction in costs. There is, however, an acceptance that some areas of England and Wales are better suited to a hub approach than others and we recognise that geographical challenges will need to be considered.

The E3 proposal concludes with an exploration of removing the management of courts from the LDUs and keeping it within a separate divisional line management. This was a response to the view that without this the courts would always struggle to deliver best practice, potentially under-resourced and lacking the resilience to deal with staffing gaps or spikes in workload. 

2.3 End state proposals 
There are eight proposals within this work package, as follows: 

2.3.1 Dedicated court services teams will prepare all the PSRs requested in the courts they service and will conduct all the enforcement work of their court. 
The proposal will allow for the development of improved report writing, with appropriate and consistent advice and prepared at the most efficient level. The teams will be backed by dedicated administrators. The proposal is dependent upon the NPS obtaining sufficient space in court, the realisation of the Digital Courts programme, as well as access to appropriate IT and information from other agencies. NPS senior and local managers will continue to work with our criminal justice and other partners making the case for our requirements and ensuring that it is understood that without these we will be constrained. 

It is recognised that there is a risk that staff in court teams could become detached from the LDU and could find it difficult to move back to offender management but the risk can be mitigated by consistent and appropriate mobility expectations across the NPS, as referenced earlier.

The proposal is that court teams will prepare all reports and will rely on information from Offender Managers as they prepare reports on known offenders in NPS and the CRCs. There are good arguments for and against this, but a focus group of NPS operational courts staff did not support the alternative of Offender Managers in the NPS writing pre-sentence reports on these cases, instead preferring that Offender Managers prepare progress reports which they then pass to the court team. 

2.3.2 Our ‘customer’, the Courts is clear that they wanted to deliver a higher proportion of same day delivery reports. 
The NPS has thus far not set a target for the proportion of court reports to be completed on the day. The proposal is that, the challenges notwithstanding, there should be an NPS target. So we propose that we should aspire to 90% of all reports to be short format and on the day, (70% oral, 20% written) with only the remainder remitted as Standard Delivery Reports. (It is recognised that this is ambitious, more so for some divisions so this is an endstate target and would be unlikely to be realised before April 2017). 
  • In the short term it is proposed that 75% of reports should be short format and prepared on the day, (55% oral, 20% written) with 10% of reports remitted as SDRs and the remaining 15% short format reports prepared later 
To achieve these targets effective local systems to provide required information in a timely manner will be essential.

2.3.3 The maximum number (likely to be up to 75%) of reports will be prepared by PSOs. 
We therefore propose that appropriately trained PSOs will form the majority of staff within the court teams, with PSRs reserved to POs only in certain specified circumstances. Clearly in some parts of the country this is already in place and is working well. Indeed it is the practice in Wales which combines excellent on the day productivity with extensive use of PSOs (with a PO backup) on which this proposal is based. 

In some parts of the country it is POs who are principally in court and the suggestion that court teams should be predominantly POs was considered. It was rejected because Wales offers a very persuasive, cost-effective model based on PSOs delivering good quality work, allowing them to exercise their skills to the full. 

PSOs will use their skills properly, working to the maximum of their role boundary. This will allow the focus of POs to be on the more complex work. However it is recognised that in some divisions not all PSOs have the skills to deliver the work envisaged. 

Our initial review of the PSO job description and role boundaries supports the view that this proposal is achievable. 

The proposal will require a period of adjustment to allow some PSOs to be trained and develop the necessary experience to operate in this new context. For some divisions, a re-profile of the workforce will also be necessary. PSOs will prepare reports on a wide range of cases. They will not be expected to complete reports on sex offenders and we will not require them to write reports on domestic abuse or high risk and complex cases until they have been trained to do so.

2.3.4 Administrative hubs will be created for courts. 
The Court Strategy and Operations ACO group was keen to explore how the administration of court work could be delivered more efficiently given the changed and increased volume of NPS work at court. The original proposal was that administration for court work would best be provided through a hub. 

What is now envisaged is not a physical hub but one which is virtual and possibly combined with other areas of activity. It is suggested though that this proposal should be deferred until later so that the NPS can respond to later developments with the digital courts without a second wave of major disruption to the administrative staff who support court work delivery.

2.3.5 Streamlining RSR/CAS. 
The proposal is that the process of determining whether an offender should be allocated to the NPS or the CRC and of notifying colleagues in prison about this should be streamlined. This is a complex issue and the ideal resolution will allow staff to complete the RSR as quickly and efficiently as possible, reducing double-keying and duplication but allowing CRC and prison colleagues to get the information they need in time. 

The RSR is a predictor based on the most current and relevant research into future behaviour. It was originally intended to be used not just for allocation but also for ongoing risk assessment. E3 has been considering ways in which the process could be made more efficient while still providing sufficient information to allocate cases. No final decisions have been made. The types of options being considered are:
  • Reviewing the format of the risk assessment in the CAS 
  • Reducing the information required in cases that are automatically allocated to the NPS 
  • Reconsidering when the static and dynamic versions of RSR should be used We will continue this work collaboratively with colleagues across the system recognising that any decision to change arrangements may impact on others. 
2.3.6 Effective proposal framework. 
To support the development of consistent good quality reports we propose that the NPS will develop an effective proposal framework to be used by staff preparing reports. This will be based upon the work developed by Commissioning Strategy Group (CSG) on effectiveness, build upon existing proposal frameworks and will support demand management strategies.

2.3.7 Divisional enforcement hubs. 
It has been proposed that enforcement activity will be grouped into divisional hubs supported by specialist teams including enforcement officers. This role, covering all magistrates’ enforcement work across a division could produce efficiency of process and scale, particularly in a metropolitan area. 

In some rural areas due to travel distance and the lower volume of enforcement cases, generic court teams are arguably best placed to manage all work flowing from court including the administration of enforcement work. Part of the proposal is to have administrative hubs (either virtual or physical units) to act as a single point of contact for all divisional enforcement work. However, changes resulting from digital courts may mean hubs are not fit for purpose in future and would need to be changed soon after their inception. 

The NPS needs to examine whether other administrative work could also be undertaken from a hub, making the hub more resilient.

Pilots have been established in the North West (NW) and North East (NE) divisions. The NW pilot has an administration hub and enforcement officer role, a model which has worked well in London for some time. The NE pilot has administrative hubs with a generic court PSO role undertaking enforcement in courts, a rural model. The pilots are still in their early stages and evaluation is not yet complete. 

While the outcome of the pilots is not yet clear this is not yet a confirmed proposal but it is included for information. The E3 board will review the outcome of the pilots before making a final decision about whether or not this should be a formal proposal. Meanwhile, the work being undertaken to review job descriptions will include the Enforcement Officer role. As stated earlier, there is currently a variation in the pay “banding” of Enforcement Officers with some at pay band 3 and others at band 4. Our view is that the Enforcement Officer role can appropriately be undertaken by band 3 staff. This is subject to the review of the job description and the job evaluation process. 

2.3.8 A review of the management structure for courts. 
There has been discussion about arrangements for the management of courts and specifically an option that courts could be led by a dedicated Head of Function outside the LDU/Cluster structure. The rationale for this consideration is that it will ensure centrally agreed strategy and policy is implemented quickly and consistently across the country and is not vulnerable to local interpretation or local resource pressures. 

This could improve the resourcing of court work and management, and allow managers to move resources within the court work function, without relying on local LDU/Cluster offender management staff. In theory this is possible now but in practice does not happen.

This model does though risk detaching LDUs from their courts so they will be unable to draw on court staff when under pressure (and vice versa). Using the resource flexibly may be challenging over large geographical areas. External dependencies (e.g. offender management in custody review, court closures) may impact on court structures and spans of control and significant changes to NPS governance structures now may be premature.

This option is being piloted in the North West as is the alternative model in the South West and London (in effect the status quo). By January 2016 the interim results of the NW pilot of this model will be available. It is recommended that following this there will be a further review and the option will either be confirmed as a proposal or withdrawn. 

2.4 Impact on service delivery 
Our approach is consistent with commitments being made by all Criminal Justice partners to improve speed and quality of delivery. 

Preparing more reports on the day depends on getting the information the officer needs to make an informed judgement about risk and a professional proposal. This enables us to protect potential victims and to support the delivery of speedy justice, something cited frequently by victims as important. This is a particular issue in domestic abuse cases. 

We will continue to work with the police to make sure that court teams are able to get the information they need (on the day) to prepare reports. We appreciate that safeguarding information is difficult to get on the day in most areas but it is rarely crucial to the sentencing decision.

Our proposals mean that the skills of PSOs will be fully used, while utilising POs for those reports that only they can prepare. The proposals will improve NPS productivity and fewer people will be sentenced without reports. Clearly this requires having enough appropriately trained PSOs in each division (see below). 

We believe that dedicated court teams will provide an improved service and relieve the burden on field teams by preparing reports as efficiently and effectively as possible. We will need to guard against the risks that staff in field teams lose their PSR writing skills and become less familiar with court processes and that the court staff become detached from the field and find it hard to return to offender management work. 

A national proposal framework (evidence-based) will support the delivery of a consistent, effective and efficient service in court across England and Wales. 

2.5 Impact on staff 
These proposals will have the greatest impact upon PSOs. To deliver more reports they will need to undertake training (beyond what is in the current VQ3 qualification) so that they are able to conduct risk assessments (including on domestic abuse cases) and are able to complete OASys. There is the potential for some modules from the forthcoming Community Justice Learning programme (which will replace the PQF) to meet this need. This is something which is being explored further.

The complement of PSOs varies significantly across the NPS divisions and some may need to increase the number of PSOs to implement our proposed new way of working. Given that the NPS is not using PSOs as fully as possible and there is considerable pressure on POs, these proposals will benefit both grades of staff allowing PSOs to fulfil their potential and POs to concentrate on the work that only they have the qualification, training and skills to deliver. 

Excellent administration will underpin the successful delivery of the proposals and while it is possible to implement some administrative changes for enforcement (virtual hubs where these do not exist already), it would be a mistake to engage in major administrative change now, before the impact of digital courts is clear. In the next phase of E3 an administrative review will be needed to reshape how and what we do to work alongside the changed court service. 

2.6 Conclusion 
We believe these proposals will enable the NPS to continue to provide the level and quality of service required by courts and CRCs within the financial and staffing resources available to us.

(more to follow)

51 comments:

  1. Probation Officer19 January 2016 at 09:14

    These points from E3 show what it's really about. It's all about cost cutting and I can't believe Napo is not in strong opposition.

    "Responsibility for Offender Management of those in custody should sit within the prison." (THIS HAS NEVER WORKED!)

    "An ambition ultimately of up to 90% of court reports being completed on the day." (AND WILL TELL THE COURT ONLY WHAT IT WANTS TO HEAR!)

    "PSOs will form the majority of staff within the court teams, with PSRs reserved to POs only in certain specified circumstances." (PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING NO LONGER REQUIRED!)

    "PSOs who have undertaken the appropriate level of training will hold low and some medium risk cases." (PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING NO LONGER REQUIRED!)

    I'm totally appalled at NPS directors for creating this rubbish. Because they are too weak to form a decent probation service they're instead further destroying it. The reason we have 'End to End' offender management and professional (degree based) qualifications is because the direction of E3 has already in the past been tried, tested and failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hoorah and great the management are recognising the skills and capacities of PSO at last no more PO repression. It is a good thing but a pity they wont pay the same rate PO grade enjoyed for the same work.

      Delete
    2. Which is kind of the whole point...PSO's will do it cheaper until they are replaced with others who will do it cheaper too...welcome to capitalism

      Delete
    3. Et tu, Anon20:22

      Delete
    4. Anon at 20.22. The fact that you think this is an exercise in recognising the "skills and capacity" of staff suggests that you are either a wind up merchant or seriously deluded. Lets see if you are still saying "hoorah" when all of this is implemented. Get over yourself and try and see the bigger picture here.

      Delete
    5. hardly Brutus dear friend and I do not mean it at all, its a tragedy of which Shakespeare may well have been proud had he seen the plot. This well ordered Machiavellian plot line is a tory party scam they will be proud of. There will no doubt be a downgrade but eventually the lower level minimum wage may be reached . PO were too complacent and the onslaught is still coming we can catch them out though and it starts with resurgence in Napo getting and tougher in action.

      Delete
  2. There's so much in this that is wrong. Was it even created by people that work in probation or the CJS? It says that safeguarding information is rarely crucial to the sentencing decision, but I can think of many examples where it is. Every time there's an SFO they go back to the PSR to see what was written and proposed. We all know that reports written on the day are not comprehensive enough in many cases. Then there's the proposals that the majority of community work in courts and offices is to be done by PSO's who will not be given any additional training. Required qualifications seems to be ability to complete a risk assessments and possible access to the VQ3 and a few PQF modules.

    It seems like unqualified PSO's are set to replace qualified Probation Officers. It's all a bit silent on what will happen to Probation Officers that don't want to work in a prison and don't want to take a pay cut to work in Courts at Band 3. The ending is the biggest crock of shite, and kick in the teeth....

    "these proposals will enable the NPS to continue to provide the level and quality of service required by courts and CRCs"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And no word from the Probation Institute on this then? Academics on probation, rehabilitation and desistance are also silent! Once upon a time our experts used to argue the need for well trained probation staff with sufficient knowledge, time and resources.

      Delete
    2. When was that then ?

      Delete
    3. Well you can now work for less money less terms and less benefits as so many younger new people will be. You can all thank eachother for the good times and remember when you were called out to be on strike where were you? All those of you cowardly inward looking picket line crossing people have supported this so dig in enjoy reap the rewards after all this is what youy were warned against but did not listen. All those loyal Napo activists who took part in the shows of solidarity well done you tried it is the remaining bones and whingers that are now realising what they did . Work the days and break the action for the sake of a few hundred quid. It will cost you now .

      Delete
    4. Here here, I know that when the history of probation is written, I stood on the picket line listening to the excuses proffered by my colleagues as to how they were too concerned about their clients to strike but the irony is even if we called another strike the same excuses would be wheeled out again...who will look after your clients when they've got rid of you?

      Delete
    5. Not one so called professional because they will chasing a title and status looking for the bucks . Failing in the realisation it was you they were after and you let them get us. 20:58 so true they used the clients excuse now they don't have any irony anyone any old Irony . 20:49 wisdom is wasted on you read here look and weep.

      Delete
    6. Obviously we want to maintain our levels of pay and associated status, we work hard to pay the bills. BUT we also want to help and support the clients and this is part of the reason I come to work and part of the reason I stood on the picket. Most of my colleagues past and present think the same way. If Tesco's or Primark paid the same id get a job there but I certainly wouldn't enjoy the job nor would I care about status or do anything over and above the basic requirements. Saying that, after TR and E3 even Tesco's and Mc D's will have a better training, development and pay structure than probation!

      The problem I did have with the strike propaganda was all the stuff about the risk to the public. I come to work to help and support people to change, not for all that "risk management" nonsense. Many clients I've worked with have said I've helped them to change, but I doubt any would be happy if they knew our unions were going around saying they'd harm, maim or kill somebody if probation hadn't of been there. Now we all knew that was a lie in 99% of cases.

      Delete
  3. The probation service officer role did not exist twenty years ago. From being subject to a court challenge the PSO role will be the bedrock of the new NPS, there may even be a recruitment drive in some areas.

    '[In 1998] Teesside probation service started appointing non-probation officers to posts previously held by probation officers. Napo challenged that and secured the "Teesside judgment", which ruled against Napo's claim but did provide guidelines to how non-probation staff should be managed. Services have largely ignored those guidelines, and we've seen the wholesale appointment of non-probation officer staff.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/aug/01/publicvoices

    According to the blueprint, the 'PSOs will use their skills properly, working to the maximum of their role boundary'. A boundary that can change at the drop of a hat is meaningless. All the NPS do is arrogantly extend it at will, throw in some training and hey presto you have a new boundary – until the next one comes along.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While they're at it the Tories may as well do away with teachers, doctors, firemen, social workers and police officers, and replace them with their unqualified equivalents. In fact why bother have professional qualifications/training at all, let's just run the public sector by school leavers and volunteers!

      Delete
    2. That'll be in the next Tory manifesto

      Delete
    3. Oh No ! No No NO ! 11:47 Dan Quayle moment . POs have their place and despite their self belief and own sense of self righteousness , it is only themselves they are deluding acting off the back of an old dated certificate qualification in social work. Hardly a real brain test of the elite academia is it? teachers are well respected still and often get victimised by failing social structures. Not in the same division as skilled and technically able and fit Fire crews women serve too don't you know ? The Police don't qualify for much apart probationary street wandering and how to be dishonest but look straight skills and the strength of our fantastic Doctors who won through this week in solidarity are showing us how it should have been done. PO grade not in the same league as Doctors get an education then come back. look and learn intellectual PO ? Pso have been the role on half the money for years and so in terms of your insult to all yours is a Dan Quale moment POs professional at what you are no professionals at that comment level. Think carefully before deride everyone.

      Delete
    4. Its been a case of Divide & Rule ever since certain Probation senior management teams saw fit to manipulate & hoodwink their PSOs, dangling ever increasing tasty morsels of caseloads, report writing, etc. Why? It was never about cost-cutting but simply incompetent bullies - promoted way beyond their capability - who felt threatened by very skilled, professional PO practitioners, and who therefore wanted to surround themselves with fawning PSOs full of gratitude. Thus Pandora's Box was opened... NOMS, never wanting to miss a trick, simply capitalised on this and the professional PO role has been slowly but surely eroded from 2003 onwards.

      Delete
    5. Yes that is very true sorry Pso were just as foolish where ambition before training saw them undermine PO grade its a two way street though who complained enough then eh ? Not enough of you that's for sure.

      Delete
    6. Borderforce are recruiting for apprentices to work 2 years rather than employing new officers. Cheap labour whilst the government can boast of increasing apprenticeships. How long before its adopted by nps.

      Delete
    7. Probably as soon as they've got through using, abusing and discharging the hundreds of PQF PO's currently in training.

      Delete
  4. E3 appears to follow the well-trod path used throughout the last 5 years: break something down into its component parts, without any recognition of how the parts fit together and complement each other; hack away at the 'cost' of each without recognition of the value; then leave those involved to figure out how to put things back together. This is why we have a crisis in the NHS: local government is forced to make cuts, so adult social care budgets are reduced, meaning that frail and elderly people stay in hospital many days longer than necessary, and prevent other people being admitted. In probation we see PSRs reduced to a box-ticking exercise, leading to inappropriate orders and increased use of staff time and effort to engage but ultimately enforce or return to court for variations to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To re-use an inelegant phrase from yesterday, "who gives a fuck?" - & I don't say this to be complicit or defeatist.

    HMG want this TR/E3 shite & are imlementing it apace with active assistance from NPS staff, plus passive assistance from PI & the unions.

    HMG opposition don't know what they want

    It would seem that no-one else cares, save for a few outspoken souls on this blog. Anon11:47 is on the money as all of those vocational professions have been diluted already. I don't understand the reasoning for or purpose of such unilateral de-professionalisation but the consequences WILL be disastrous very soon. We need to ensure there is enough evidence to lay that responsibility in the laps of those who created this cluster-fuck.

    Thankfully JB has the library that is this blog where concerns and policies and opinions are recorded. I hope there's an independent backup of the blog archives as the Nasties have a track record of deleting & re-writing history to protect themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The conservative government destroyed industry during Thatchers reign.They are now intent on destroying the remaining public services. By de-professionalisation of services they have a steady stream of labour. The fact that they have been able to do it so easily is frightening.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Confidence in all things Probation, NPS and CRC, is dropping like a stone - faster and harder than ever before right now. People on all sides are giving up, and getting out however they can. They've had enough. This next bit many won't agree with, or they certainly won't want to. But I don't think it's down to the bid-winners - they have kept right out of the way, in the background. Yes, they have imposed the new operational models, but the real problem I feel has been with the 'old' senior managers who have not imparted information, leaving those on the shop floor feeling confused, in the dark, and de-skilled, not valued, and taken for granted. They appear to have not forward-planned, leaving major tasks to the last moment, causing further stress to those trying to keep things running on a day to day basis, and those they now dump on to do major pieces of research and implementation work, which should have been started and put in place months ago!
    Unfortunately this 'done deal' has been made ten times worse, because of lax management. But maybe if the managers had been a bit more on the ball in the first place, none of us would be in this situation. I'm so angry and disappointed, but I guess you can tell that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 20:08 I disagree and if Anon 11:47 is a D. Quale you must be a D. Trump. Being a probation officer IS a professional role and for going back many years has been. We work with vulnerable people and serve professional institutions, and it should be ensured that the right people are doing the right job. Many have fought to retain the professional training over the years from the DipSW to the DipPS, and even the PQF and the required continuous professional development. There are many professions that can be delivered straight from the manual, with qualifications or not, but it is the selection criteria, professional training and qualification that sets those workforce apart. Normally good professional associations and unions are part and parcel but we fall down a bit in this area. Anybody who believes different, including that PSO's should replace PO's, is very misguided. In fact this type of misguidence is what the powers that be initially used to con PSO's into being contented with lesser pay and limited access to qualifications and training.

    Feel free to tap out an emotionally charged response. It won't change the above and that rarely have I met a probation (or youth offending service) manager that wanted a PSO over a qualified/trained PO. It's surprising these managers then make it to senior management grade and ignore all what is right for frontline workers and the clients just to keep themselves safe and secure in their ivory tower!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No point in emotional response there was no passion to protect your group as a professional structure. It missed the reasoning of why we should have come together in solid action. Poor messaging Napo and terrible incompetent chair judgements. Its all rinsed us of our future and too many complacent managers we are to call leaders ? That is a laugh ! Where are they now paid off and on holidays we can all dream of.

      Delete
    2. "Your group"? In my experience PO and PSO have always worked together to preserve and improve what we have. It's the probation management that's always been the problem, increasingly since they willingly became NOMS minions. It's not hard to see that most 'new money' managers sought promotion in the first place as they hated probation work or were just crap at it. This still seems to be the prequisite for making the senior management team or a secondment to the Ministry or NOMS. All in all we shouldn't be surprised with E3, they've showed their hand and now they may as well sell the NPS to Sodexo and be done with it.

      Delete
    3. that is coming

      Delete
  9. tomorrow Merseyside find out their staffing model & numbers. A note from the chief to us all today told us the news will be broken at 3pm via email tomorrow - late in the afternoon so they can get a days work out of staff before they go home crying. We've been forewarned it wont be good news for some.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Probation officer training has been around since about the 1930's. It was hit and miss, and we scraped along in knowledge and understanding. By the 1960's we were recognised as professional caseworkers working in a professional field. We were likened to social workers and the necessity for the right skills, training and qualifications recognised.

    Fast forward to 1996 and the Tory government removed probation training because of its delusional "prison works" policy. We then had the Diploma in Probation Studies, considered a 'gold standard' amongst some academics.

    As we feared, now the Tories have returned and with the view that a professional workforce is not required. This is set to revert us back to 1996 and pre-1930, and our probation managers, unions and institute have been part of it rather than opposing it. E3 is dangerous and damaging, and we can only hope they change tactic and do not implement it in its entirety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sell off the probation service. Get rid of probation/rehabilitation professionals. Build bigger prisons. It starting to sound like "prison works".

      Delete
  11. E3 coming to your office soon! They removed our water cooler today despite our protestations how mean is that ! What happened to caring about the well being of staff unfortunately in the new world of the civil service nobody can hear you scream ��

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We haven't any printer paper!

      Delete
  12. In Kent pso's were removed from court and replaced with po's pre TR. Invariably they ended up in crc. Have they not got a case for constructive dismissal as they are now recruiting new pso's for court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably more chance of Idris Elba getting an Oscar

      Delete
    2. Not Likely they had accepted the changes already and did not resign at the moment of forced change.

      Delete
  13. The problem with this is as PO's we rely on written information for start OASys. On full SDR's it's worth keeping the case and doing a good solid OASys so you can update but pull through for the start custody/co. Plus you have a good grasp of the issues for the SU too. If most reports are hand written or lack info then the work is bigger once you take the case over as it's a start over brand new cold OASys. I bet they don't give extra time for this. Plus now we have ARMS asessments for Sex offences, not on the workload, more oral hearings than ever before, not on the workload, cold OASys, no longer on the workload, CAS/RSR, not on the workload. We are being shafted at every angle and all the Union can do is moan about it. The new workload is dodgy to start with too. Supposed to be a work in progress that needed tweaking. I don't see anyone tweaking it except to cook the books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree. The problem is that Napo and the unions have no say in the NPS and civil service, and will do anything to get a look in. This is 100% why they are supporting E3 when they should be opposing it. If Napo and even the Probation Institute had any credibility they'd be in vocal opposition on the grounds of "best probation practice" and would have probably got an abundance of members in return. Because they instead range from silent to useless just affirms their aspiring positions as part of the NOMS superstructure.

      Delete
    2. And I believe it will only shift to a better position if probation directors oppose E3. Not all at CO and ACO grade are for E3 but out of these against there's probably less than a handful that would risk speaking out or being a dissenting voice. It is upto the likes of Napo, HMIP, criminal justice academics and the PI to start the ball rolling.

      Delete
  14. 20.22. Are you you just trying to wind every PO up with your ridiculous generalising or just pissed off cos you didn't get on the latest PQF training? Having been a PSO and then sacrificed my wage to train as a PO I do find your comments insulting and unhelpful.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We had the 3 As Advise, assist and Befriend (close to an A), then we had Confront Challenge and Change now we have Efficiency, Excellence and Excrement...what happened to the 3 Bs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was TR - Bugger, Break, Banish!!

      Delete
  16. Every court report should be done on the day. This includes those needing dangerousness assessments. The courts have sentencing guidelines which they follow and not what a PSR recommends. If you're dangerous you're doing porridge. Simples so no report is needed. It's a no brainer. Why write a repot when you know the outcome. Everything else can be done on the day. In a court of 70 listing a day I'd have 1 pso giving verbal updates to the court all day. 5 min interview followed by the update. Swift quality justice. No administration is needed as court results can be printed of the computer. Courts need to run more efficiently. The above should become common practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like my manager except we've about 90 listing a day and expects the same. He also says POs have no business in court...

      Delete
    2. @ Anon 06:50 The only "simples" thing here is you. "Quality justice"? Don't make me laugh.

      You clearly don't work in probation or care about the issues, so why don't you go away and find another blog to troll?

      Delete
    3. There was a time when Pre Sentence Reports properly informed sentencing, as they still do in the Youth Offending Service. That was until we put PSO's in Courts and began to write tick box reports that gave courts the proposal they told us to give. It is for the Courts to demand a return to credible reports and PO's in Court, which I thought was the point of Grayling's "specialist" NPS.

      Delete
    4. "Every court report should be done on the day. This includes those needing dangerousness assessments. The courts have sentencing guidelines which they follow and not what a PSR recommends. If you're dangerous you're doing porridge. Simples so no report is needed. It's a no brainer. Why write a repot when you know the outcome. Everything else can be done on the day. In a court of 70 listing a day I'd have 1 pso giving verbal updates to the court all day. 5 min interview followed by the update. Swift quality justice. No administration is needed as court results can be printed off the computer. Courts need to run more efficiently. The above should become common practice."

      I'd like to think this is from a troll - but if it represents a serious viewpoint, it just demonstrates how little understanding some of our colleagues have for the work.

      Delete
    5. To my utter dismay I have to accept such views are held by staff throughout the pay grades of probation, CRC & NPS. Its just another example of how the service has been dismantled from within to allow the "new" ideology to prevail.

      Delete
  17. Take care to use a spellcheck when posting.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/20/i-live-in-a-terrorist-house-police-speak-to-muslim-boy-10-over-spelling-error

    ReplyDelete
  18. I just woke up from a dream where there were signposts telling me get on with it and be shafted (I hate that word but then it was a dream) or leave. Then there was a friend standing in front of me happy and not stressed in a new career. I have time to retrain before E3 is implemented, I think that's what I need to do. Good luck to you all out there.

    ReplyDelete