I have heard this from my work mate who has spoken with designer of new tool. Good news: PIT tool is going; bad news QA tool is coming and it’s even more time consuming. We need to speak to our union reps about this. We have high caseloads - plus have extra admin data stuff to do / NSIs, tracking spreadsheets. Now this!!
It doesn't matter what quality tool is used. If you have an excessive workload then demand management protocols need to be put in place which is all about reducing tasks. There can be no justification for expecting staff to achieve unrealistic objectives when there are excessive workloads. In an ideal world we all want to produce quality work but we are far from an ideal world. Anyone with specific concerns should contact their union rep for advice especially if workload demands are impacting on their health and wellbeing.
Rosh pit has gone. It was decommissioned back in May. There are guidance notes for staff. Only oasys assessors have to fill in the QA tool.
We still have to use guidance notes tho and that’s what is taking time plus the roll backs from SPOs.
The QA tools are frustrating. Not followed one yet ....those ‘probation staff’ who are part of designing and devising them would benefit in reflecting on their own previous practice and whether it would have met the QA guidelines! More work, no decent pay rise! Staff are imploding because of stress. Shocking!
I would say that the new QA is quite a change in what they want to see in a good assessment. I've completed one with my manager & would definitely say it's worth every OM having a look at it to see just how easy it is to get a needs more work or worse. Lots of focus on SU input and specific SP objectives which is good but not sure how realistic it is to expect the level of detail and repetition expected in every case. Managers have regularly said to me that 'good enough is good enough' when I've complained about workload, which is all well & good until what is considered 'good' keeps getting more and more detailed...
Maybe the actual tool such as OASys needs amending instead of coming up with various guides to tell us where to put information which has not been requested through the OASys guidance and that’s before the repetition, oh the repetition.....
That's what I said in our training the other day. The new tool doesn't lend itself to the actual eoasys sections. We have been told not to use help button in eoasys as goes against the QA tool! Eg. If you have someone with loads of court breaches and indicate breach of trust in rosh screening, the assessor will mark it as a negative and it pulls the scoring down. It costs too much money to change eoasys.
Why would they mark it negative, that doesn’t make sense.
Because if the reason for ticking yes to the breach of trust question isn't related to SOC, terrorism or whatever else was in the audit, think 5 areas, but not court orders or escape prison, it should be ticked no. Therefore if ticked yes and it's just a breach of order, the audit tool indicates to give a negative mark. Our assessor though has said she uses her discretion on that particular question but other assessors might not.
Maybe the actual tool such as OASys needs amending instead of coming up with various guides to tell us where to put information which has not been requested through the OASys guidance and that’s before the repetition, oh the repetition.....
That's what I said in our training the other day. The new tool doesn't lend itself to the actual eoasys sections. We have been told not to use help button in eoasys as goes against the QA tool! Eg. If you have someone with loads of court breaches and indicate breach of trust in rosh screening, the assessor will mark it as a negative and it pulls the scoring down. It costs too much money to change eoasys.
Why would they mark it negative, that doesn’t make sense.
Because if the reason for ticking yes to the breach of trust question isn't related to SOC, terrorism or whatever else was in the audit, think 5 areas, but not court orders or escape prison, it should be ticked no. Therefore if ticked yes and it's just a breach of order, the audit tool indicates to give a negative mark. Our assessor though has said she uses her discretion on that particular question but other assessors might not.
Is it bad that I hadn’t even heard of PIT until a few weeks ago?
I’ve avoided using it lol.
I'm not sure I even know what it is...
I'm not sure I even know what it is...
More and more time spent at the computer. Less and less time working with people. And sometimes feels like I am just describing my job role in oasys now. Sad.
I’ve had enough.
I’ve had enough.
I heard CRC are moving away from oasys and are trialling their new system Omnia in Thames Valley. Oasys needs a massive overhaul.
OAsys is a huge sponge sucking up resources and giving nothing in return.Prison Offender Supervisors are not bound by the same rules and churn out ‘good enough,’ ( or often, not good enough) assessments which are signed off because their assessors understand that OAsys detracts from doing the job.
ReplyDeleteIn a prison, life is dominated by the regime and that is the priority. Everything else comes second.
In probation we should be maximising contact with the client group and everything else come second.
Also we should not be acting as unpaid clerical officers for other agencies I.e. ARMS and M2K .
I have noted that it is the up and coming managers who have no practice experience who want to make their name with regards to OAsys. I remember their practice when they were in the field and a lot of them left a lot to be desired.
Or worse still some who have never held a caseload telling hard pressed teams how easy it is to meet unrealistic targets
I think the best response to them is to ask for them to provide an assessment they have done so it can be used as a template. That should quickly end the dialogue.
As for the wages, IL has to deliver this time or even his acolytes will be unable to defend him.
There is something essentially depressing about this top-down approach to probation assessment. OASys cost a fortune to develop and implement and now it's past it's sell-by date and no doubt will soon be obsolete. But no worries: new tools will emerge from the marketplace as there is clearly an industry that has to keep the toolmakers in work. You can see all the effort by an exhausted workforce that must go into understanding how to apply new tools. Like the battle plans of the Grand Old Duke of York, it all seems futile and irrelevant to making a difference to outcomes. I also find it depressing that the docile workforce will spend their conscious effort on these bureaucratic Rubik's cubes but less on agitating for better wages and voting in elections.
DeleteIf you count those fetching pink & grey ring binders which clutter the less well curated office bookshelves OASys has been around for 20 years. Like Windows 98. Would you rely on a 20 year old car?
DeleteI like most agree oasys is essentially defunct. But can I suggest that I) people write 10 times less in their OASYS sections 1-13 - this is meant to be a brief analysis of why this section is linked to risk or not....harping on about every job the person has ever done, or all the training courses he did in prison, or telling me all about his home and how much he pays for it and why he is financially stable and chapter and verse about nothing, is highly irrelevant for an offender whose ETE, finances and accom is not linked to risk. Save your energies people, to free up time to engage with your service users, collaborate with them on their goals and actually deliver those sentence plan objectives in the way you say you want to.
DeleteWe can only imagine the steady stream of nausea inducing emails pouring into ILs inbox following a convincing victory over a candidate who back in the day would never have made it onto the ballot paper but was the best that the left wingers on the NEC could find in the absence of a credible candidate.
ReplyDeleteThere are many challenges that face IL. He has sorted his major priority which was his income (running two homes and sports cars doesn’t come cheap plebs) and will insist he is employed on the old contract that guarantees him a payoff - so two years pay in the bag no matter what.
IL has long been able to prove that being competent is not an essential skill for his post but because he does little it hardly matters. But what we do need is a functioning NEC. The sort of NEC that should have determined that both MR and IL were unappointable and readvertised. Despite strong words in private their actions in dealing with IL are spineless. After he has outlined his plans (give him 10 days) as his employer they should be scrutinising his every move and all the work he says he is doing and if he doesn’t like it he can complain to his own union. If he doesn’t buck up his ideas then there should be an emergency motion at AGM calling for a vote of no confidence. Members should not fear being leaderless as that is exactly the position we have been in since IL stumbled on Napo as a cash cow after retiring from PCS. Nice work if you can get it where the only qualification is a rhino thick skin.
OMNIA is being touted by MTCnovo as the answer to all our problems. In reality it is a slightly user friendlier front end that still has to interface with the usual crap that is not going anywhere any time soon.
Those of a certain age want to get back to doing proper face to face Probation work and not being penalised for not filling out repetitive forms. However this is the lot of a weakened 3rd rate pseudo civil service organisation. Recent Probation staff think sitting in front of a computer with the occasional interruptions from punters is what the job is about.
Oasys in my office was signed off by my SPO....case then transferred to me...completing transfer in with little change the exact same ROSH was then rolled back (by the same SPO) as needing more work...i have asked the QDO, I have asked the SPO to use their great wisdom and to do a template that i can go off but neither will do it...(because they cant) despite them throwing other examples of good work at me from other officers...Oasys is now used as a capability stick with which to beat us with and as alluded to elsewhere...those who couldn't do the job are now telling us how to do it better....
ReplyDeleteThe current attitude of 'stuffing SFOs' down our throat is all part of this culture of fear that is pervading Manchester at the moment...fear that SPOs and above will be caught out as not doing everything that they should when we all know that the best Oasys in the world wouldn't stop one SFO from happening...they try to tell you that they are looking for any organisational issues when in reality they are looking to apportion blame away from the service and onto the individual....don't believe me? Wait until you have one..
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile the head of the Probation giraffe is buried deeply in the sand whilst off playing silly buggers at the probation institute!! http://probation-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Conference-brief..pdf
ReplyDeleteThat probation conference is on today
Deletehttp://www.resourceforlondon.org/events/2018/7/2/probation-institute-probation-practitioner-conference
The 3rd Annual Probation Practitioner Conference, delivered in partnership with the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Companies, will take place on the 2nd July 2018 at Resource for London and will give attendees the opportunity to take stock of current practice, to share good practice and
Deletethe latest research and to look at what ways the probation world can go forward to achieve stronger outcomes. Speakers and workshops will discuss pathways for the future with key messages about partnership, communication and integration. They will focus on innovative practice, research outcomes, professional development and ways in which organisations can collaborate better across the NPS, the CRCs and voluntary sector partners.
Clearly relationship building and communication between and within the NPS, CRCs and criminal justice partners, including the key role of the voluntary sector, is of the utmost importance to ensure that probation and CRC systems can operate effectively with their partners. Interactive workshops will focus on what is working well, what research can tell us and how best to support practitioners.
This is a targeted conference on probation, rehabilitation and resettlement with those most likely to benefit from this event including senior leaders from HMPPS, practitioners and managers from the NPS and CRCs, the Third Sector and the wider criminal justice sector including prisons, police and sentencers.
We anticipate that key themes will be raised through inputs and the very important discussion opportunities for attendees, this will include to:
• explore how provision can support and enhance consistent professionalism;
• examine how good practice can create positive outcomes for individuals and communities
• build bridges between NPS and CRC and other providers to ensure a coherent and comprehensive
approach for service users, sentencers and the public;
• explore relationship building within and between relevant partner organisations, building on what is
working and what more needs to be done;
• build confidence in the development of a coherent professional workforce across probation,
rehabilitation and resettlement services.
The event will conclude with the Probation Institute sponsored 15th Annual Community Justice Portal Lecture to be delivered by Dr Wendy Fitzgibbon, Reader in Criminology from the University of Leicester.
The OASYS QA tool, formerly PIT, is simply an OASYS improvement tool - read it, glance at it, write your sections. It can actually save a lot of time and at least clarifies what the various sections mean. Whoever wrote OASYS needs to be shot e.g. "When is the risk likely to be greatest" is an assessment of likelihood of serious harm/how imminent is the risk - the "when" refers to "when in terms of timescales"...I just can't see how people seem to always miss the second bit "consider timescales and indicate whether risk is immediate or not". One focussed paragraph describing who is at risk, what type of risk does this person pose to each risk group, how likely is that risk/how likely will that comprise serious harm, what factors will increase risk (aka what are the risk factors and why) and what will reduce the risk and why. People need to simply read the tool and apply it, rather than moaning about how awful it is in the same breath as saying "I don't actually know what is is" or "only started using it last week". The OASYS guidance was always there and I cant remember people moaning about that. And yes, having trained 10 years ago I'm confident my assessments would meet sufficient on that tool.
ReplyDeleteI got the impression watching the Justice Funding Debate last night that Rory Steward didn't really want to talk about probation. It was also clear that all that took part in the debate, including those that brought up the 40,000 now priviaged with supervision, are clear that TR is an absolute disaster for all involved.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if it's available on Iplayer or catch up but the Hansard Text can be found here.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-07-02/debates/4EF00686-3F7F-4EB1-854D-E0BDB9B3E839/EstimatesDay
'Getafix