It was obvious to all with the possible exception of every greedy CRC company, Chris Grayling and every spineless CEO who failed to utter a word against TR, that in Year one the only way that savings could be made was to cull staff.....tick......now going into Year two they are realising that the promised profits are just projections not worth the paper they were printed on therefore go back to the tried and trusted getting rid of staff with the excuse of restructuring......tick......now the next year will be even more interesting as there will hardly be any staff to cull so what do they do next?
......well this is when they return to the MoJ to blame them for selling them a pup and ask for more money...but the cupboard is bare so they'll look to join forces with other agencies under the guise of yep you guessed it restructuring to provide 'better services to clients'......sub text meaning we've no idea what to do next....the promised freedom to innovate disappears into the distance as the desperate hunt for profit continues.......I have it on good authority that two possibly three CRCs are looking to hand back the keys with each waiting for the other to be the first..it's a game of business brinkmanship with neither wanting to be the first failure.......there's a lot of loose tongues at the MoJ at the moment and rumours of a strategic rethink on the cards as the realisation dawns that making money out of offenders/clients/criminals is a lot harder than they thought...
******
When allocating a case you fill in two long and dull forms. One is the CAS (CASELOAD ALLOCATION SYSTEM) which uses information from the RSR (Risk of Serious Recidivism)form. The CAS asks a load of largely pointless questions but at the end is a table with a list of five or so questions, any one of which if answered yes is an auto-NPS allocation. They go something like has this person
1 Committed a S15 offence (serious violence or just about any sex offence)
2 Are they a Foreign National being held by immigration
3 Are they on a deferred sentence
4 Does the RSR tool result in a score of 6.8 or above
5 Something else which I thankfully have forgotten for now. It may actually have to do with professional judgement.
Now the kicker is that if you DO NOT hit one of the above you could have a signed letter from Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Yahweh and Shiva the destroyer stating that this guy is going to kill somebody (and after all they would know, being omnipotent and all that) and YOU ARE GOING TO THE CRC.
When allocating a case you fill in two long and dull forms. One is the CAS (CASELOAD ALLOCATION SYSTEM) which uses information from the RSR (Risk of Serious Recidivism)form. The CAS asks a load of largely pointless questions but at the end is a table with a list of five or so questions, any one of which if answered yes is an auto-NPS allocation. They go something like has this person
1 Committed a S15 offence (serious violence or just about any sex offence)
2 Are they a Foreign National being held by immigration
3 Are they on a deferred sentence
4 Does the RSR tool result in a score of 6.8 or above
5 Something else which I thankfully have forgotten for now. It may actually have to do with professional judgement.
Now the kicker is that if you DO NOT hit one of the above you could have a signed letter from Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Yahweh and Shiva the destroyer stating that this guy is going to kill somebody (and after all they would know, being omnipotent and all that) and YOU ARE GOING TO THE CRC.
*******
The risk mantra is being chanted over & over again, but no-one seems to be asking "what does that mean?". I read "he's high risk", "she's medium risk", "they're low risk", "High risk at point of offence are now low risk", "Med risk are always high risk..."
I'm not wanting to be rude but it really doesn't mean anything. Risk is not a generic box into which people are crammed (no pun intended). This is why I would agree that risk IS a smokescreen, in the same way that the weekend patient mortality figures were a smokescreen for Jeremy *unt, and in 45 minutes we were to be obliterated by WMD. They're the manipulations & sleight of hand of professional politicos to achieve ideological ends, not real-world events.
How many different elements of risk category do probation staff work with? Oasys, PPO, RM2K, ARMS, SARA, MARAC, MAPPA...
Sure, filling in the forms means the information is collated, but what then? Risk-averse managers start pissing their pants because of resource implications, they dump their anxiety on their staff (or try to get shot of the case to another agency), and the whole shithouse goes up. No-one gets a good deal - not the client, not the practitioner, and not the public. The only benefit seems to be that the manager is praised for "flagging up a risk issue"...
...Meanwhile some poor PSO in a CRC has a caseload of volatiles who are in and out of court, getting high every day on anything they can get their hands on, exacerbating any mental health or behavioural traits, knocking their various partners about and inundating the local children's services with numerous safeguarding cases. SFOs are primarily populated with offences involving mental health, domestic abuse, child protection.
And guess what? Mental health services have been axed to the bone, domestic abuse is rife and social services are in crisis. Now probation has been decimated and the 70% of "low & medium risk" cases sold off to private enterprise who are focused on profit, shedding experienced and "expensive" staff, replacing POs with PSOs, and generally cooking up a disaster which will explode very soon.
The risk mantra is being chanted over & over again, but no-one seems to be asking "what does that mean?". I read "he's high risk", "she's medium risk", "they're low risk", "High risk at point of offence are now low risk", "Med risk are always high risk..."
I'm not wanting to be rude but it really doesn't mean anything. Risk is not a generic box into which people are crammed (no pun intended). This is why I would agree that risk IS a smokescreen, in the same way that the weekend patient mortality figures were a smokescreen for Jeremy *unt, and in 45 minutes we were to be obliterated by WMD. They're the manipulations & sleight of hand of professional politicos to achieve ideological ends, not real-world events.
How many different elements of risk category do probation staff work with? Oasys, PPO, RM2K, ARMS, SARA, MARAC, MAPPA...
Sure, filling in the forms means the information is collated, but what then? Risk-averse managers start pissing their pants because of resource implications, they dump their anxiety on their staff (or try to get shot of the case to another agency), and the whole shithouse goes up. No-one gets a good deal - not the client, not the practitioner, and not the public. The only benefit seems to be that the manager is praised for "flagging up a risk issue"...
...Meanwhile some poor PSO in a CRC has a caseload of volatiles who are in and out of court, getting high every day on anything they can get their hands on, exacerbating any mental health or behavioural traits, knocking their various partners about and inundating the local children's services with numerous safeguarding cases. SFOs are primarily populated with offences involving mental health, domestic abuse, child protection.
And guess what? Mental health services have been axed to the bone, domestic abuse is rife and social services are in crisis. Now probation has been decimated and the 70% of "low & medium risk" cases sold off to private enterprise who are focused on profit, shedding experienced and "expensive" staff, replacing POs with PSOs, and generally cooking up a disaster which will explode very soon.
*******
And here's one for the mix. How about the wonderful introduction of ORA? Hurry up now and do his OASys start custody. He'll be out in a week and you can do his OASys start licence. The week after when his licence finishes you can do your OASys review to end licence and start post sentence supervision. Don't worry though, if he doesn't comply with that you can do another OASys review along with your breach file so you can get him back in court for his inevitable £50 fine with order to continue. We've really sorted this no supervision for under 12 months haven't we? Hey ho though. We can buy some more services from CRC to get them back on board and make them offence free. (from Facebook - but I particularly liked it)
And here's one for the mix. How about the wonderful introduction of ORA? Hurry up now and do his OASys start custody. He'll be out in a week and you can do his OASys start licence. The week after when his licence finishes you can do your OASys review to end licence and start post sentence supervision. Don't worry though, if he doesn't comply with that you can do another OASys review along with your breach file so you can get him back in court for his inevitable £50 fine with order to continue. We've really sorted this no supervision for under 12 months haven't we? Hey ho though. We can buy some more services from CRC to get them back on board and make them offence free. (from Facebook - but I particularly liked it)
*******
So historically it could be argued that probation WAS a vocation, which became a job, and is now all but extinct:
1870s: Frederick Rainer makes a five shilling donation to the Church of England Temperance Society to help break the cycle of offence after offence and sentence after sentence. The Society appoints a 'missionary' to Southwark court and the London Police Court Mission is born.
1880s: The mission opens homes and shelters - but the Probation of First Offenders Act 1887 contains no element of offender supervision.
1900s: 1907 & The Probation Service is formally established. Between 1910 and 1930 the prison population halves, probation has played a major part.
1920s: The 1925 Criminal Justice Act establishes probation committees and the appointment of probation officers becomes a requirement of the courts.
1940s: The 1948 Criminal Justice Act introduces prison after-care and provides for funding of Probation Homes and Hostels.
1950s: The Central Council of Probation - the forerunner of the Probation Association - is formed to speak with one voice for all employee probation committees. Home Secretary Rab Butler attends and says: "I think that your service is perhaps the most devoted in the country."
The CJ Act '91 had a disastrous impact; suddenly the work of the probation service was something that politicians could and did tinker with in order to make a name for themselves. And here we are.
******
This blog does attract some fools making mischief and some comments can be clownish. But some of the most foolish, clownish and disingenuous comments are to be found in the various missives issued by the NPS and CRCs, whether its their silly acronyms or the deceitful way they rebrand every cheapskate reform as an exciting innovation. We read their stuff and line by line you know they are lying through their teeth. They claim to be inclusive and to value their workforce whilst savagely cutting headcounts. They claim to be morally motivated to help service users to lead better lives, but their core motivator is making money and handsomely rewarding their misanthropic elites who lie so effortlessly and strive to keep the workforce in a state of job insecurity. And if at some point in the future their profits or reputation should slide, they will walk away and flog their contracts just as G4S are now doing with the youth jails.
So historically it could be argued that probation WAS a vocation, which became a job, and is now all but extinct:
1870s: Frederick Rainer makes a five shilling donation to the Church of England Temperance Society to help break the cycle of offence after offence and sentence after sentence. The Society appoints a 'missionary' to Southwark court and the London Police Court Mission is born.
1880s: The mission opens homes and shelters - but the Probation of First Offenders Act 1887 contains no element of offender supervision.
1900s: 1907 & The Probation Service is formally established. Between 1910 and 1930 the prison population halves, probation has played a major part.
1920s: The 1925 Criminal Justice Act establishes probation committees and the appointment of probation officers becomes a requirement of the courts.
1940s: The 1948 Criminal Justice Act introduces prison after-care and provides for funding of Probation Homes and Hostels.
1950s: The Central Council of Probation - the forerunner of the Probation Association - is formed to speak with one voice for all employee probation committees. Home Secretary Rab Butler attends and says: "I think that your service is perhaps the most devoted in the country."
The CJ Act '91 had a disastrous impact; suddenly the work of the probation service was something that politicians could and did tinker with in order to make a name for themselves. And here we are.
******
This blog does attract some fools making mischief and some comments can be clownish. But some of the most foolish, clownish and disingenuous comments are to be found in the various missives issued by the NPS and CRCs, whether its their silly acronyms or the deceitful way they rebrand every cheapskate reform as an exciting innovation. We read their stuff and line by line you know they are lying through their teeth. They claim to be inclusive and to value their workforce whilst savagely cutting headcounts. They claim to be morally motivated to help service users to lead better lives, but their core motivator is making money and handsomely rewarding their misanthropic elites who lie so effortlessly and strive to keep the workforce in a state of job insecurity. And if at some point in the future their profits or reputation should slide, they will walk away and flog their contracts just as G4S are now doing with the youth jails.
My gripe of the day and another reason why I'd never join the Probation Institute. The so-called Fellows group (FPInst) at the PI is starting to look like an alumni of the Probation Chiefs Association. The few below are amongst the worst as were gung-ho leading us into TR and privatisation, and what the hell is a Working Links managing director doing there?!!!!!! Now it makes sense why their cosy little "Fellows" group is trying to call anyone a Probation Officer. Anybody expecting the PI to comment (which could only be negative if it's genuine) against the impact of TR, E3, cuts and privatisation on probation practice can forget it!
ReplyDeleteDrum roll.......
Gill Hirst - ex CEO Essex CRC
Tessa Webb - ex CEO BeNCH CRC
Heather Munro - ex CEO London CRC
John Wiseman - CEO BGSW CRC
Paul Hindson - MD Working Links
http://probation-institute.org/about/fellows/
Why are all the PI fellows white?
DeleteI wonder what ABPO has to say about that?!
ABPO and the Probation Institute are in partnership! Imagine that; must feel like how Chris Rock felt hosting the Oscars!!
Deletehttp://probation-institute.org/abpo-and-pi-announce-new-partnership/
From their website:
Delete"Probation Institute fellows have made an outstanding contribution to probation or community justice and are recognised experts in their field. Fellows of the Probation Institute are entitled to use the letters “FPInst” after their name. If you are interested in applying to become a Fellow of the Institute, you will need to complete an application form. Applications will be considered by the Institute’s Membership Committee."
Bit like applying for a place on The Chaser, as Bradley says: "Come & have a go if you think you're clever enough."
Working Links are culling probation staff so I don't know why Paul Hindson is on the list. In fact half of those on the list probably haven't done anything for probation and are certainly not "recognised experts".
DeleteBut THEY think they are.
DeleteJust as an update I now have PTSD as a result of my supervision. Probation ilk deserve all the shit you get.
ReplyDeleteThat is very disturbing news. Without going into details that would reveal your identity, would you care to explain a little more?
ReplyDeleteMr SOTP is back. Don't encourage Jim.
DeleteTbh, there is something to be looked into in terms of impact of putting offenders on programmes sometimes years after the offence and forcing them to revisit their crimes. In some cases this can be regressive if rehabilitation has already been achieved, in other cases detrimental due to grouping them with offenders that have committed worse crimes. We respect lifers by not forcing them to trawl over their offences years after sentence/release so I'm not sure why we do it to everyone else. For offenders and staff alike there probably is an argument for causing PTSD.
DeleteReminds me of an individual who saw no point in addressing his sexual offending because he had become a born-again Christian - he reasoned he no longer held his previous identity because he had been spiritually transformed. Similarly, you could argue that the risks of developing PTSD should excuse a person from groupwork for medical reasons. You end up in reductio ad absurdum
DeleteI'm not so sure. I regularly come across offenders that committed historic offences many years ago, or have spent over a year, sometimes two awaiting prosecution, trial and sentence, or have served a sentence and are now released and have picked up their lives. For those that have gone through their own cycle of remorse and rehabilitation along with the passage of time, it can sometimes be regressive to then put them on offending behaviour programmes because it's expected or their scores add up. Then we must ask if we are actually helping, changing or protecting by putting people in groups to revisit their crimes and whete there will always be those that have committed more heinous crimes. Let's face it, CBT may be popular but there is no definitive evidence that it works.
DeleteHad a conversation with a pqf the other day, she asked why the likelihood of reconviction on RM2000 increases the further you get from offence, conviction and supervision.....why, because the further you get from the offence, conviction and supervision, the more complacent people become; the more secure they feel in their 'new me' persona, and without police or probation to remind them of their past behaviours and the consequences for them and others, risks are taken!
ReplyDeleteAnd based on that reasoning is why Risk Matrix 2000 is horse crap.
DeleteAlternatively as more time passes more of the things you are measuring happen. So if we are looking at risk of death from crossing the road in a given cohort of road crossers. If the risk is 5% a year and you have 100 of them. In 2 years 10% will be dead and in four years 20%. Risk does not increase over time (It remains 5%) but more of em have had time to meet that speeding truck.
DeleteIf RM2000 and other risk prediction tools are so very accurate then there is an easy solution to illiminate any potential risk of reoffending: Lock everyone up in Prison forever.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, if someone comes to the end of their incarceration/supervision and still has a Very High or High Risk of reoffending then why the hell are they being let back onto the streets?
Err, 19.47, perhaps because hypothetical risk is not, in itself, an imprisonable offence?
ReplyDeleteIf risk prediction is so accurate and persons are assessed as High or Very High risk why are the chances taken to let these risky persons onto the street?
DeleteIf a hypothetical risk is so accurately deduced that it can be considered Very High then why take that risk at all?
Because there is a significant difference between something being 'risky' and something being a 'certainty', 20.00. Besides which, once a sentence is served it is completed - only a court can impose further imprisonment if a further offence takes place. The general public (including probation officers and anyone involved in risk assessment) do not pass sentence, and rightly so.
DeleteRisk predictions are not accurate. Prisoners cannot be held past their release date. In a lot of other cases the parole board decides release, and that's whether probation agrees or not.
DeleteAlso the % indicated by the categories are incredibly low in most categories. Very high is something like 40% in four years. but high is 10% or so. This means that the majority of those assessed as very high will not offend again and the overwhelming majority of the rest will not. OUr risk tools are very good at spotting the type of person who will offend but shockingly bad at identifting WHICH ones will.
DeleteFrom Jan 2003, a plenary session about management of sex offenders from a European perspective.
DeleteA French view was offered: "It was felt the intrusiveness of a form such as OASys would cause public concern that it breached the European Convention of Human Rights. The stigmatisation and labelling of offenders is forbidden, even though the government wants a solution to sex offending. As little data is kept as possible and there is no sharing of data between different ministries. All forms are registered with the department which looks after the rights of individuals."
By contrast:
"The UK view is that public protection outweighs privacy and that labelling is part of assessment. Offenders need to recognise that what they are doing is unacceptable and they must change. They are not going to change unless they recognise that they are sex offenders."
I wonder which country has the greatest number of convictions for sexual offences, or the greatest number of victims of sexual offences?
To anonymous 19:22, the risk of reconviction increases over time because of the amount of time that has passed. Reconviction is about the repeat of an event. The longer you wait for the event to occur again the more likely it is to happen. Whether it be another burglary or an asteroid strike (for instance).
ReplyDeleteer......by that reasoning someone who commits a burglary aged 19yrs is more at risk of committing another burglary when they are 50 rather than when they are 20? ....someone has lost the plot....bobbyjoe..
DeleteRight, that's it!! I'm buying a lottery ticket on the basis that the risk of me winning must have increased to biblical proportions by now.
DeleteThanks, 19:54.
And no, I won't be sharing it; but I will let you know how much I won on Thursday's blog.
Anonymous 20.24 risk assessment tools measure the chances of an offence over a period of time. Rather than any fixed point in time. Therefore a 19 year old is more likely to offend by the age of 50 (ie within 21 years) than by the age of 30 within 11. More time for things to go wrong the longer the period of measurement.
ReplyDeletesorry, but surely more time for people to mature, be more settled & less likely to re-offend?.......if you are right then I am glad I retired last year as my thinking was wrong during my 19 yrs as a PO (but Idon't think I was wrong)....bobbyjoe
DeleteThis is the perverse nature of risk assessment. There are so many exceptions and variables to this it is wrong to call RM2000 accurate. Being one of the more accurate risk tools does not mean that it is accurate. To work on the premise that every person that comes before us will reoffend, increasing in likelihood as they age, is perverse and goes against rehabilitation and believing people can change. If a child puts his hand on the hot stove and burns it we wouldn't expect him to do it again. If some idiot named Thornton then told us the child is more likely to again put his hand on the hot stove as he gets older would we believe him? If the child instead say walked into a lamppost would we credit this to Thornton's prediction? I think that unless a person commits a similar offence within a reasonable timeframe then it cannot be used to support RM2000 as accurate. If a person commits a serious crime when they are 19 and then is offence free until the age of 79 committing a minor crime I don't think this can be attributed to RM2000.
DeleteRisk assessment tools don't measure the chances of an offence over a period of time. The figure that tools like OGRS etc come out with represent the number of people, out of 100 with identical characteristics, who would be predicted to have committed a further offence over a certain period of time. The 2 year figure for OGRS is always bigger than the 1 year because there's more time for offences to be committed, and the figure for offences committed within 2 years includes all of those offences committed within the first year!
DeleteThe same goes for RM2000. It's not a prediction of the probability of any given person re-offending sexually, but an indication that out of 100 people with the same characteristics, X would have a further conviction after 15 years, and Y after 25 years (or whatever the time periods are - I'm a CRC PO so obviously my brain has forgotten irrelevant information like this in favour of the lure of profit profit profit!)
It is completely wrong to express the outcomes of these tools as a probability of any given individual client committing a further offence. An OGRS score of 75 doesn't mean a 75% probability of a further offence; the client could be one of the 75 expected to offend again, or one of the 25 who don't. These tools are guides for intervention, nothing more.
Do not worry, bobbyjoe; forgive them, they know not what they say or do. Its the new way. We're old hat, dead in the water, extinct, etc. Let them have their day - buy a lottery ticket like I'm going to do & enjoy being free.
DeleteIf I buy a lottery ticket every week im going to win sooner or later. My chances will increase over time. I'm more likely to win after 30 years than after 1 year. The fact of the matter is that I may win a tenner every now and then or may never win anything at all. Maybe I'll realise it's a mugs game and just pack it in from the first loss and get on with my life.
DeleteStatic risk assessment (RM2000) predict a Persons likelihood of reconviction based on their life circumstance at the time of the original conviction.
DeleteDynamic risk is assessed by the changes made in the life of an Offender during their period of supervision.
So I presume that Dynamic risk overrules and changes Static risk leading to a different outcome of Very High, High, Medium, Low?
Dynamic risk can change from one second to the next. For example if an Offender is at home asleep then their risk of reconviction is clearly lower than when they are awake.
By combining Static and Dynamic an accurate predictor for if an offence may or may not theoretically happen at some future date is achieved. Thus informing on the best course of action to take with an Offender.
I bet your looking forward to explaining that at an parole/oral hearing!
Delete21:29 - nature of the lottery means that odds do not change week by week; so number of weeks that you buy a ticket does not increase your chances, whilst the number of tickets you buy in any one draw probably does increase your chances. Based upon 2 draws a week for 52 weeks, 104 tickets @£2 = £208. There are statistical arguments saying that if you buy a year's tickets for one draw the odds of winning must be better than 1 ticket in every draw, i.e. instead if 1:45,000,000 they become 104:45,000,000, or about 1:450,000. Of course, others argue that all you've done is reduce your chances of losing by the infinitesimal amount of 0.000002%.
DeleteNot according to the rules of RM2000.
DeleteI bought 52 lottery tickets once a year for 3 years and won nothing.
Delete@anon 21:29 - you painfully misunderstand the nature of odds and probabilities. Your odds are the same every week, regardless of how long you've played. RM2000 is all well and good, but at best it's a very blunt tool (at worst, it's pointless busy-work bureaucracy).
DeleteExactly my point, it's flawed thinking. Now apply that to RM2000 and all our other silly risk predictors that people take as the gospel (which is also inaccurate)!
DeleteIt makes perfect sense 21:49.
ReplyDeleteStatic risk assessment tools can be inaccurate and biased. We know that from Ogrs. Dynamic and clinical risk assessment tools depend on the judgment of the assessor which can also be inaccurate and biased. The fact is that there is no full accurate risk assessment method, and those we do have are not very good predictors.
DeleteHabitual behaviors are generally more predictable than infrequent behaviours. Predictions of risk generally work best over shorter time intervals. Static risk assessment is based on circumstances that are rarely repeated exactly. Clinical risk assessment is based on opinion and guesswork. So anyone claiming their risk assessment is accurate is fooling themselves. Anyone hiding behind a risk assessment tool is fooling everyone else. And anyone who thinks "risk assessment and management" is what probation work is about is a fool ... probably!!
ReplyDeleteAnd the same polarised "scientific" arguments are used about TR or not TR, flat or spherical earth, creation or evolution, etc.
ReplyDeleteLike the proposed reintroduction of wolves, lynx & bears, "Risk Management" sounds exciting & innovative but the consequences are dangerous unless contained within very well-defined & secure boundaries. Too many people get over-excited at the prospect of "managing high risk", but should never be allowed to handle a hamster.
ReplyDeleteContext, subjectivity, purpose, emotion - Consider these two statements:
"In discussion of the drink-driving issue, the point is often made that the "hard core" or "high risk" offenders would ignore a lower legal limit just as they ignore the currently one. But how do we define these high-risk offenders, who exactly are they, and what can be done to get through to them?"
"High Risk Offenders are a very heterogeneous group of offenders: they are all different. They can be murderers, rapists, pedophiles, robbers, and a multitude of other criminals. They are also not ordinary offenders, but those convicted of some of the most heinous crimes."
Nobody has mentioned 'acute risk factors' in any of the above postings.Whilst the various types of risk assessment tools provide frameworks for risk categorisation, the clinical and interpersonal skills required by the actual practitioner are crucial.Without developing a working relationship where small changes in behaviour or physical presentation can signal the potential for risk escalation and knowing how to respond professionally, effective risk assessment is impossible. If you've received Risk of Serious Harm training in the past few years, there was a NOMS document which listed acute risk factors for a range of Serious offences. Research into SFO's indicates that lower risk cases are at a higher risk of serious harm to the public.
ReplyDeleteI think I triggered a lot of these comments about risk. I responded to a comment where a PQF has queried why the risk increases the further you look into the future from the offence. This is evidenced in OGRS and OGP as the % is always higher over two years than one. Complacency was mentioned as an explanation. However, if you are looking for something to reoccur (offending), the longer you look into the future. The more likely it is occur whatever the reason.
ReplyDeleteIt was meant to be a simple observation, that applies to any event that might happen again.
..... "if you are looking for something to reoccur (offending), the longer you look into the future. The more likely it is occur whatever the reason."
DeleteThe words "pissing" and "wind" come to mind!
well, I tucked my laptop in the car when we came on hol yday, now chilling in a lovely lodge with amazing views over the hills around Dumfries. I got out my laptop and was stunned to see that the comments, in 24 hrs, have jumped from 8 comments in the previous 24 hrs to 42 in the next 24 hrs! -all making varied comments on statistical assessments.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's MY lot on numbers - never was very good at maths, and I thought RM2000 in particular, was a heap of rubbish- pointless, time wasting, sometimes dangerously misleading and sooo wrong, it could never be more than a generalised estimate. I placed my faith in my knowledge of the offender,their history, their circumstances, and their attitude, as I'm sure most other staff did, but staying aware that no systems could be wholly accurate. But that was in the olden days, before the brave new world of TR, which has turned the brain into an automated computer, in spite of people's efforts.
I feel so sad about the destruction caused by TR and ponder on the statistical calculation of the whole thing collapsing and common sense returning....
That's because the new and poorly trained breed of PO does what the computer says!
DeleteIt's my understanding that statistical risk tools such as ogrs do take age into account so the likelihood of reoffending reduces as you hit certain milestones (age 25 rings a bell for instance). That said, I complete them because if I don't I get told to jfdi and rarely base the work I do with that person on their scores. Also with most risk measurement tools there is some research or rationale as to why they exist, what they can do and their limitations but I have seen absolutely no information about the rsr tool which leads me to believe that it does anything other than generate random numbers which inevitably gets overridden anyway.
ReplyDeleteRM2000 has at least 30 years of evaluations and empirical evidence to support it!
ReplyDeleteThe evaluations are actually quite varied and none give it an unequivocal green light. Risk Matrix 2000 relies on static risk factors and is therefore limited. It relies on the assessor then using it in conjunction with focus on dynamic risk factors, but these are not necessarily easily identified. It is not applicable with some groups and individuals. Overall it is not much use except for in addition to other assessments and for those that like to hide behind a risk assessment.
DeleteAgain I must emphasise the crucial component of an effective working relationship with cases. Time-served PDA shafted in to CRC.
ReplyDeleteIt amazes me how a number of you who post here seem certain that poor work practices were born with the onset of TR.
ReplyDeleteProbation Officer's effective work practice: "You tell me everything about yourself and I'll say nothing about myself"
ReplyDeleteThat's a bit of a generalisation. I know quite a few probation officers that talk about their own lives and experiences.
DeleteI agree 2050. I am now retired but during 18 years as a PO I frequently referred to experiences in my own life, if it was relevant to the client's situation and progress. I talked about my experiences of anger and distress in my own life and how I coped with those situations. I have even shed he odd tear and been comforted by clients when talking of my experiences of bereavement, which in turn, comforted them, realising that I understood how they felt, and that I was a human being, not just someone who tried to control their life. I shared their happier times and occasional photos and I believe this was instrumental in gaining their trust.
DeleteI chose my times and clients carefully,I didn't just natter on. And I gained their respect. And I will never forget, among all my thank you cards over the years, the card from a DV victim, who would talk to me occasionally about her situation. After her partner's Order ended, and she was still trying to make a decision to leave him and take their child, she came to the office and left some chocs for me, along with a card, which just said 'Thank you for listening'.
That is what the job was all about. And that is what has been lost now, no time to talk, no time to listen, no time to gain their trust and respect, or even a reluctant acceptance that their officer just might have been right!
I do the same; it's normal to share a little, it's part of building the professional relationship and it shows we're human too. It's a pity that too many in probation think our work is solely about confidentiality, public protection and unpaid work. I regularly come across PO's that think sharing is "inappropriate", supervision without a worksheet or task is a waste of time, breach and recall are 'must use' control methods, and that probation should be administered as a punishment.
DeleteI've been around a while (10+ years) and I've not once come across a PO who acts in the way you describe - except perhaps on the issue of sharing personal experiences, and I think that's down to an individual preference.
Deletecurrently there are 5 admin manager jobs in Merseyside (all band 4) but an advert out today says they are only recruiting one and each has to submit an application form. It's carnage up here.
ReplyDeleteI question why an admin manager is band 4. Should be band 3 at best as admin are band 2.
Deleteabout 10 yrs ago there was a job evaluation and band 4 is what they were set at. Everyone chokes when they hear they are band 4 when you think of the comparable work other band 4's do. I think the 4 unlucky ones will downgrade to admin support but on a protected deal.
DeleteCarnage all over the place. Won't be long before the proverbial happens and CRC's implode.
ReplyDeleteI cant believe why more staff aren't posting with examples of poor treatment on here - why out of 200 staff am I the only one to post about this, people should be shouting from the rooftops. Yvonne Thomas is taking phonecalls tomorrow afternoon so it will be interesting to hear what questions staff call in with.
DeletePeople are frightened. They don't want to be identified & punished for rvealing the reality. They know what The Trusts did, they heard what Sodexo did, they need their jobs. So far all I see TR has achieved is a raft of negative outcomes: splitting the service, distressing the staff, taking the piss. But from where I stand there's little I can change.
DeleteI took action - I took legal advice (expensive), I took union advice (pisspoor), I spoke with my MP (buffoon), I wrote to the press (ineffective), I challenged senior managers (unpleasant), I challenged the CEO (deeply unpleasant), I wrote to the Chair of the new owners (unanswered). The inevitable happened & I walked - I could still feel cold steel in my back for some considerable time. At least I tried. Others kept their counsel, kept their heads down, smiled & are still there as far as I know.
My thoughts are with those facing shitty times ahead.
21:33 reading what you say it sounds exactly like me! Almost exactly!
DeleteI kept my head down and smile and I got promoted :) take note peeps
DeleteI think you're telling porky pies, 01:56...
DeleteThe funny thing is that this blog is reflective of probation staff. We all are stupid enough to have that bit of goodwill left, that hunger to learn the trade and commitment to deliver the service. This is despite the Royal shafting we've all taken in the ass from the probation service, and that's from Trust's, NPS and CRC's. Probation training and practice is now done on the cheap, staff are being let go, offenders are a commodity, offices are looking like McDonald's, unions are dead in the water, etc, etc, etc. There is no evidence base any more, nobody cares about the pros and cons of RM2000 and nobody is going to speak their mind in public for fear of reprisals.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/01/gove-prison-reform-reducing-inmate-numbers
ReplyDeleteTypical Tory policy; lock people up and justify building more prisons.
Deletehttp://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/01/what-should-we-do-about-paedophiles
ReplyDeleteWas told today in my NPS area (NW). Report writers have been told not to recommend RAR in reports for cases likely going to CRC because they charge for them & they don't do anything with them so why waste NPS money.
ReplyDeleteThat has got to be utter bollocks. NPS are not charged if a case is allocated to CRC with RARs.
DeleteThink you need to look at the Rate Card fees. States to deliver a RAR the CRC charges a fee
DeleteYes we know they don't do anything with them but I doubt they're charging the NPS. I wonder if anyone does anything on a RAR as the stupid associated legislation requires an action/activity at each session. I don't know why they took away the good old fashioned probation orders, community rehabilitation orders and combination orders!!!!
DeleteCould understand that if the delivering a RAR on an NPS case, but they wouldn't be charging NPS for RARs if the case is allocated CRC. If the offence is committed after 01/02/15 and a community penalty is being imposed surelu unless you go for an oder without requirements, straight upw or curfew then RARs must be imposed since supervision ascknown, no longer exists.
DeleteWorking Links are charging NPS for RARs and for Programmes via the rate card.
DeleteIf they are NPS cases but CRC are delivering the RAR activity or prog then yes charges apply via rate card. But if a case is allocated CRC then there is no charge to NPS for just imposing the RARS or Programme as someone suggested previously.
DeleteMy mistake (22:32) I meant CRC charge NPS for RAR on N P S cases & then do very little work if anything. Money for nothing. Another money making scheme for CRC is they charge for UW and some clients do their hours with agencies where it is voluntary agencies and free. Majority of fee claimed goes in CRC coffers. Easy this money making isn't interested?
DeleteWhy are CRCs supervising sex offenders? I thought they all went to NPS
ReplyDeleteIn the case allocation tool/system MAPPA cases are allocated to NPS. MAPPA oversees only registered sex offenders. With some sexual offences there is a threshold of a 12 month community sentence to cross before you have to register. Community sentence below this and no MAPPA and you could go to CRC. There are also people with historic convictions.
DeleteCRC charging NPS to deliver unpaid work. TR is absolutely insane.
ReplyDelete