Pick of the Week 22

At last, a spirited response, without an unprincipled gloss. A split in Napo. Reminds me of a Leonard Cohen line, 'There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in'.

It's an odd state of affairs when an AGM resolution needs to be restored from Napo's recycle bin. It should not be so easy in the first instance for officers and officials to overturn a member-led resolution which was passed in opposition to what the leadership wanted. At the very least abandoning the AGM resolution should not have been presented as a fait accompli, but as a proposal for consultation, on the assumption that 'member-led' is not a meaningless slogan. Now the two dissenters have to seek to reverse a perverse decision that was imposed.

The decision to acquiesce and appease the employers is the wrong one. It is worth fighting for the national codes of service. The 2014 staff transfer agreement shows that the employers cannot be trusted so the appeasers are deluding themselves if they believe they can negotiate, again, from weakness. Let Napo members at least have an opportunity to reject the race to the bottom mentality of the employers. It is time to fight back.

******
They should now publish all the figures. This could hardly be called whistle blowing as the authors are either withholding information because they agree with Lawrence (don't trust the membership) or they do not have the full facts and are bluffing. Pearson saw a win win situation here in his bid to replace Lawrence by pretending to support Berry in a principled crusade against the end of national negotiations in apparent defense of collective bargaining, knowing full well this will fail, but unlike Berry he will gain credit from this for appearing to fight to both support trade union principles and appearing to support the left wing of Napo. It's a smart move well played. Someone explain this to Chas that he is being played.

******
Fighting talk from two principled people but this is very much a case of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Local collective bargaining is the way to go now as no one will get the NPS and the CRCs back to the table. Napo simply hasn't got the membership density to make these kinds of demands. The national negotiating machinery no longer exists. Unison have walked away. GMB have no objection to local collective bargaining. Employers have not said they want to end collective bargaining, they just want to do it locally.

What is feared are regional pay deals where probation staff in London and the South East, where they struggle to recruit and retain staff due to the cost of living, are likely to be paid more and enjoy increased benefits under local collective bargaining agreements whereas those in other regions, where there is a surplus of staff and the cost of living is lower, may well not get increases and increased benefits.

No Napo member working in the CRC in London and the South East in their right mind should support a campaign to support bringing back national collective bargaining. With the demise of national collective bargaining staff in areas where there is a high cost of living and whose pay has been frozen can now look forward to increased pay and improved benefits.

Chas Berry split the vote enabling the ineffective chairs to be re-elected and now he is splitting Napo over a campaign he and his supporters cannot win and will achieve nothing other than to force Napo into talks with PCS in whose offices they are currently residing, with a view to being assimilated. The cash from the sale of Chivalry Road is no doubt earmarked for Ian and Co redundancy payments.

******
The AGM motion was a short sighted own goal as Chas & Alex knew it would be at that time. The NNC was a lost cause but thought they could get Napo members stirred up over a perceived loss of collective bargaining, although even this was misleading. It is as well to read what Napos negotiating committee had to say in their paper presented to those attending the AGM. It is readily apparent they had given up on the NNC as a lost cause months before the AGM. They assumed Chas would wake up and smell the coffee but as usual he refused to accept the reality of what was actually happening and spoke passionately about fighting for something that he knew could not be achieved. Unfortunately he has been valiantly fighting for lost causes for some time and Napo is just the latest vehicle. Unfortunately Napo members only got to vote on a pointless motion that was effectively a non runner - the punters were told it was a safe bet. They were not told that the NNC had already ceased to function (they didn't even book a room to meet in!!) and its days as a viable negotiating forum had ended and no one doubted it would soon no longer exist.

******
It was the weakest opposition to any motion I ever seen. Barely audible, incoherent, garbled. A major fail by the elected top table to deal with what has become a major problem ultimately now threatening Napos very existence.

******
So the RARs are a total fudge, MoJ/NPS & CRC providers are all doing different things, courts haven't a clue what various providers are providing and there are hundreds of people in England & Wales still subject to court orders who have completed their RARs but never been seen for months. Equally there are hundreds who have been given court orders of 12 months or more who have completed their RARs & then been discharged from their order "for good progress" after 2,3,4,5 months. And presumably no-one knows the true picture, hence the 'paper'.

So MoJ say protecting the public is their number one priority, hence trashing historical "wet liberal" probation and replacing it with farcical pocket-stuffing probation, aka TR. No! Their only concern is protecting the Providers from exposure to "business risk", i.e. loss of money by CRCs and loss of any remaining credibility by MoJ/Noms. Total Shambles.

******
The RAR guidance is flawed because the RAR legislation is flawed. There is no legal basis for the muddled conclusion. Another example that useless twats run the Probation Service.

******
I think the paper from the MoJ means nothing. Private probation companies will operate whatever way they wish, just as they are doing with staff redundancies, excessive caseloads, training or the services they provide for service users. To my mind they hold all the cards. The government are over a barrel. Privateers have already made a big noise about being misled prior to signing contracts, which suggests to me that if the contracts were taken from them legal challenge would be mounted to force the government to pay for the whole life of the contracts. If the private companies walk away, then it would take legal challenge by the government to impose any financial penalty. Either way, it would prove very damaging for the government. Private companies know exactly the grip they hold on government, and like everything else they'll exploit it to the max.

******
As a recently retired court officer with many years prosecuting breaches under my now expanding belt, to the last I could not work out the basis for the current requirement regarding reporting "outside" the designated number of RAR days as "supervision" in its own right specifically ceased to exist. I did spend a considerable amount of time trying to
A) work out with managers/casemanagers how to explain to courts the difference between just keeping an appointment and having a one to one RAR session (never did bottom out that one ) and B) wondering on what proper legal basis a breach of an order could be pursued once that designated RAR days had been discharged. 

As far as I was ever aware a Judge or Magistrate passing a sentence treated RAR days as essentially the same as unpaid work, once the requirement is done, in effect that's it. Surely this must have been the initial intention from the outset otherwise precluding "supervision" as a ongoing requirement would be totally pointless. I do appreciate that to attend initial inductions and like appointments are part of any community order or SSO, but to continue insisting on attendance up to the end seems bizarre and contrary to commonsense. Both those sentencing and those sentenced should be clear as to exactly what they are signing up for. MoJ as ever produce darkness where there should light.

******
Offender Rehabilitation Act 3 (1) "In this Part “rehabilitation activity requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that, during the relevant period, the offender must comply with any instructions given by the responsible officer to attend appointments or participate in activities or both."

This means we ignore both PI 58/2014 and the new guidance above which are incorrect. Appointments and activities are both included in the RAR. When the RAR ends so does contact with the offender. Any appointments offered after the RAR end are voluntary and not enforceable. I've seen many breaches deemed illegal on this basis.

******
ORA is badly worded but it does appear to distinguish between "appointments" and "activities" under a RAR. Whereas the number of days are prescribed under a RAR, appointments are unlimited. The confusion arises when RAR is being completed by using one to one "appointments" with officers (rather than "instructions" to attend all these marvellous new innovative activities alluded to). I suspect this is happening quite a lot. Then, from this interpretation, once the RAR is completed, Orders are probably lying around stagnant with nothing happening until expiry date (which is fixed in court). 

The MoJ appears to be correct in their albeit unclear communication style. Once RAR activity days are completed, if there is a gap of time between completion of RAR and expiry of Order, (two distinct situations), the Order should either be taken back to court on grounds of good progress, or appointments be issued until the end of Order to monitor risk etc. In my view difficulties have arisen because privately owned companies inevitably view court orders as belonging to them to play with as they please. The Orders don't belong to them, they belong to the court. They are implemented and enforced on behalf of the court. This is the shocking, foreseeable consequence of privatising justice. Fat cats seeing themselves as above the law, literally.

******
It all seems so obvious to the rest of us. My immediate thoughts went to the E3 shite, that has made the main driver of sentencing - speed - striving originally for 90% of reports being done on the day - subsequently reduced to 70%...from my own experience this results in stand alone SSO's, UPW or a Curfew - nobody works with the individual to overcome barriers to compliance - they are just numbers and if they fail, the service is seen to fail so either - no reports are made or they are put before a breach court to be dealt with inappropriately as described above. Compliance starts with the first contact with a service - if it is make shift and shoddy - we shouldn't be shocked when that is how the order/sentence is treated.

******
ORA & supervision for everyone has simply collapsed the CJS & any possibility of effective/meaningful rehabilitative intervention. Risk averse incompetents running Trusts had ensured the breach system was disappearing up its own fundament even before the privatisation catastrophe brought the roof down.

******
Actually what collapsed the CJS & any possibility of effective/meaningful rehabilitation is the silly policies of building new (Titan) prisons, privatisation of probation and the ever increasing police state!

******
TR has created a ticking time bomb nationwide. I work in the NPS and the failings are appalling due to the constant disruption. It's only a matter of time before the next victim. It's soul destroying working in this atmosphere.

******
On this information alone I do not think the Probation Officer should be blamed. The focus should be on the organisation rather than the individual. Condolences to the family of the deceased. The reality is we are paid to see offenders for 30 mins or less every week, fortnight or month. Our training has been long removed from social work, the degree element slowly eroded, time for reflection and learning replaced with high caseloads, bad pay, deteriorating terms and conditions, understaffing, no resources, etc, etc.

******
Totally agree. Despite the chaos created by TR, this officer is on the ball and pro-active. A SUMMONS was issued and court date set. Being a YOI Licence this person could NOT have been immediately recalled in the same way as adults on license. If I am wrong about that please let me know. The error here is with police releasing an individual presenting as a risk. Evidence available. Why not charged and remanded? For me, that's the unanswered question. If anything, the only person doing anything of any value here was the case manager.

******
In the Hanson and White, Anthony Rice and Sonnex cases, the Probation Inspectorate carried out independent reviews. In this case you have a private company investigating itself which undermines natural justice. This present case has wide ramifications that involves the police, prisons, mental health and probation; there are inter-agency protocols that should be impartially assessed. This tragedy was preventable and until there is an independent inquiry and clear recommendations for future practice, the risks of further tragic outcomes will remain.

******
The newly appointed PSOs in my NPS office are being allocated the most inappropriate cases mainly because there's no one else to take them. They've had little or no training and some of them are so stressed with the worry they are going home and crying! We are trying to support them but no time really.

******
Same in my office sadly. Managers also at risk as they have to decide to give cases to PSO's on competence. Supposedly. However, they are then being told they MUST give PSO staff some cases to ease the pressure on PO's, or else. The PSO's have had little training at all and they are supervising medium risk cases that have just only reduced to medium. Many were high risk only a short time ago. Whilst they are capable individuals generally and will make good PSO's, it does concern me if something goes wrong. We rarely have time or the inclination to support them. And we will not train them either to be fair. SFO's are now far from the norm. Admin all got bumped up to act up PSO's as well which left us with temps who had no idea what they were doing as no-one left to train them. Breaches and recalls falling down and collapsing as a consequence. I do know of one death that may have been avoided were the Courts to jail the SU on the second breach. A breach has become pointless and meaningless to the Courts and SU's also. It's the whole CJS that needs a shake really. Communication between agencies is poor as all services in a similar sorry state.This sad story, not the first and it will not be the last.

******
Mappa process also gone pear shaped. Just an SPO and a DI arguing over stuff then setting all actions for POs. No more shared agency views. No more supporting decision making. Plus hardly any level 2 or 3 these days. Most normal agency management after a number crunching paper exercise. Lost all meaning and respect.

******
Correction.....Substitute PO with PSO. A PO was not providing supervision with Working Links. The PSO was clerical and not trained to do the job, neither was the Manager who was also not a trained PSO or PO. Working Links have now removed 240 jobs and regrading staff removing the job of Probation Support officer to reduce pay and experience required to undertake the role. As of last week it was said all regrading has to take place by the 31st March 2017. So have lessons be learned?

******
I've been knocking around since the days of the SER. When I first came across these, I was impressed, and also bemused. These long, detailed documents were of terrific value to probation staff who went on to supervise the client, but rarely read by the magistrates, who would go straight to the last paragraph. So the rationale for producing something shorter and less detailed prior to sentencing makes sense IF...IF the same time and attention is given to analysis and research after sentence, a whole working day was the time allowance as I recall. The system whereby this was required by the court prior to sentencing safeguarded the allocation of the necessary resources and time.

******
"To avoid adjournment, a PSR should ideally be done on the same day." Firstly, amazing how what is ideal changes, irrespective of evidence, secondly, when it comes to courts losing time, the judiciary have a monopoly. This same day ideal is on a par with that other fallacy of £46-pounds-in-your-pocket. The Sentencing Council is stuffed with sinecurist's and other time servers, who follow the ideology of the day rather than what constitutes good practice. If the PSR hadn't been so degraded over the years, we may, for example, have fewer mentally-ill languishing and deteriorating in overcrowded prison.

******
We lost this fight years ago. The fallacy that you need a full OASys to do a full report came up against the last, now almost 7, years of austerity. First you break the link between a full assessment and a PSR. So "Simple cases" can be done on the day. Then you decide that you can get partly trained PSO's (Sorry all you PSO's out there but there IS a difference between a PO and a PSO and that difference is AUTONOMY and the trust of the Organisation) to do those "simple PSR's". Then you gradually erode what is not a "SIMPLE" PSR shoehorning more and more complex cases into that category. Then you realise that the quality is dropping but rather than address this decide that it is all about SPEED of delivery. Therefore you start setting "Stretch" on the day targets. Then you jump that target from 50% to 75% to 90% to "The expectation is that ALL will be delivered on the day". Then you recognise that the whole process adds nothing to sentencing because the reports are done on a conveyor belt.

This will only be reversed now when a mistake is made of such magnitude that somebody who is either 1 Important (Monckton for example) 2 Media catnip (So someone young and blonde and pretty, that usually does it) Is killed by some psychopath in court for a drink drive offence that a cursory examination of the records would have showed that there were bigger problems. Even then if it can be pinned on the poor sap who wrote the report then it will be business as usual. We are fucked, get used to it.

******
I am a court probation officer. For those of my colleagues who do not work in the court setting, just to advise it is horrendous and a disaster waiting to happen. Complex mental health and DV reports done in the space of 20 minutes if you are lucky! This is a shameful indictment of government directives and a lack of backbone by the judiciary to accept this watered down service not to mention potentially dangerous state of affairs that has been created. Anyone remember reflective practice? What refuse bin has that been consigned to? Henry Ford would be proud of the mass produced, conveyor built system of dealing with peoples lives that currently exists in the courts. I am truly ashamed to be a part of this despicable system. I feel contaminated like I have sold myself for 30 pieces of silver which I know I have done. I want out but I have children to feed and a mortgage to pay.

******
Once not that long ago the end to end offender management idea placed value on the PO being involved with the SU right from the start of entry of SU into CJS and though the order to the exit of the SU. Sometimes the PO would follow the SU through the process 2 or 3 times before the SU eventually found his/her feet in a non offending lifestyle. As I perceived it at the time, this approach did involve the SU in the promise he was making to the court to avoid offending. Also the SU would be more closely involved in deciding how he would do that. 

From the PO's point of view there was a real commitment to supporting the SU to succeed. The conversations between the SU and the PO in supervision were real because they had entered into a contract together at the court stage. The mags/judges would be more inclined to follow proposals as they were able to see that contract in front of their eyes in court. They perceived this was genuine and it made them trust us more. They were more patient with us and with the SU when there was re-offending or a breach. They understood better that for someone to stop offending is a process requiring a huge effort and focus on the part of the SU as well as on the part of those who try to support the SU to make those changes. 

I used to encourage all involved at PSR stage to see it as a creation of a contract between SU, supervising PO and court, one where all parties are accountable. And for a brief season it worked for me and for my SUs. I believe that as things are now the SU would struggle to see the point of their all too brief PSR assessments, the PSR authors become less able to make good proposals as many now have no experience of supervising a SU through an order and the supervising staff as mentioned by others here struggle to establish a useful starting point in their supervision in terms of working relationship. The mags and judges must feel every day that the current system is too full of holes, as many SU appear in their courts at an ever faster pace with no real explanation of the work that has been done with them so far.

******
Oral reports, CAS documents and RSRs not worth the paper they are written on. Yet another myth of TR ignored by unions. NPS, though no fault of their own, are not assessing risk and are not providing risk management plan's, CRCs shot in front, back, head, toe and sides.

******
By virtue of the short form PSRs, and no other arrangement for full assessment and analysis, CRC not given the information they need, and by virtue of absolute crap contracting and commissioning, not delivering what the shoddy court reports promise. Downward spiral, and its leading to ire between previous colleagues/comrades across the CRC-NPS divide, when we should be united in laying the blame squarely at the door of the Minister, and his successor(s).

******
That is the nub of it: the PSRs are written in haste, which might be excusable if the follow up supervision and interventions were invested in and effectively delivered. Internet sex offenders now not to go on to group programme. In my area there is a waiting list for the programme of over a year, at which point the motivation and engagement is waning. Haven't had time to check out the new one-to-one intervention for the internet (specifically Thornton low risk) men, but I get a whole day's training on that shortly, so that's all sorted (not). Cheapskate justice, and lamentable cuts, dictated by a department that doesn't know its private parts from its arm joints.

******
Magistrates have no sway over what happens at higher policy level as regards probation reports. MA unable and National Bench Chairman's Forum too busy with their own aggrandisement (IMHO) to make much fuss about this - though magistrates would probably be the last to know if they did. It may be odd to say it, but magistrates now have relative less input into sentencing so probably find longer probation reports less valuable. Sentencing guidelines make the direction of travel fairly obvious. On the community order/custody cusp there will be valuable input from probation and defence. Otherwise, magistrates have little idea what RAR entails and no say over what it should entail, so why be particularly interested in the characteristics of the defendant that it may address? The questions for which answers are needed have become quite straightforward:
Will RAR be useful: yes/no
What activity (eg drugs) will help?
Can the defendant do unpaid work or curfew? 

It is surprising how often there is no recommended punitive element that there must be in a sentence. Sentencers are often left scrabbling around for something to put in to make the sentence even vaguely match the seriousness of the offence. I should say I think this is a structural failure, not of the excellent POs and PSOs found in court.

******
I wholeheartedly would be behind the abolition of NOMS. This agency is a complete waste of tax payers money and creates nothing but bureaucracy for us on the front line trying to actually do our job. Just the thought of no more ignored emails and only them contacting me when it suits them must be a good thing. Go back to parole clerks in prisons - they know each case inside out and a firm point of contact with consistency. Cheaper, more efficient without the added NOMS b****cks bureaucracy. Shame its taken so long for even a sniff of getting rid of this farcical organisation.

******
Where does this leave probation? NOMS was a mess, we know that, but nobody seems to know who will run/lead Probation or whether it will be Probation friendly. We don't want to be left as a department of the HM Prison Service and poor relation of the Civil Service. Local councils and Police and Crime Commissioners may stake their claim on probation in due course but are not the answer either. NPS directors are complicit in all of this which means we will get no answers until the damage is already done.

******
"However you organise accountability at the centre, public safety outcomes across probation, prison and courts are intrinsically linked." Not really, no, Mr Lawrence. They're linked to each other no more than they're linked to the CPS and defence solicitors, or to housing departments, social services and the Parole Board. As with all of these agencies/organisations, the Probation Service has worked best when left alone as a separate agency/arm of the Criminal Justice System and away from the meddling of ministers, prison governors and CEO's.

******
Unlike those who seem to dream of a brave new world dawning ("We welcome the Secretary of State stepping up and looking to break the cycle of failure and crisis") I sense Jim is pointing out that the more likely scenario is nothing will change except the name. It will be the same topline of prison bullies, with maybe one or two casualties of early retirement & a generous £thank-you-bonus, the same Tory buffoons and the same blinkered agenda that leaves CRC staff in crisis & NPS staff in full harness.