A Disconnect at HMPPS

Not a week goes by without further damaging evidence of the utter failure TR has been for the probation service, a former gold standard service before it succumbed to the ministrations of disgraced minister Chris Grayling. 

Much of the negative attention has tended to focus on the privatised CRCs, but the civil service-run and now thoroughy bureaucratised NPS part has no grounds to feel smug. Today sees publication of a joint thematic HMI report into the treatment of sex offenders and I love this bit:-

"At a national level, inspectors found a disconnect between how Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) described its work with sexual offenders and what was happening in practice."

This from the press release:-

Management of sexual offenders misses the mark and must improve

Significant improvements are needed to ensure sexual offenders are managed effectively in prison and in the community, according to a new report out today.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons conducted a joint inspection into the management and supervision of men convicted of sexual offences in England and Wales.

Inspectors found:

• much of the work delivered with sexual offenders in custody is poor
• the National Probation Service is not doing any work to address the sexual offending behaviour of four in 10 sexual offenders on probation
• in one in three inspected cases, not enough was done to protect children
• assessments of offenders were not completed to a good standard in a third of inspected cases, and were sometimes seen by staff as “a box to tick”.

Chief Inspector of Probation Dame Glenys Stacey said: “Sexual offence convictions are increasingly common, yet despite evidence that we can reduce the risk of these individuals reoffending, little if any meaningful work is being done in prisons. With many probation staff unsure what to do for the best with sexual offenders under probation supervision, the public are not sufficiently protected. This makes no sense.

“There needs to be a renewed national effort to make sure all reasonable steps are taken to protect the public. Prison and probation staff need better training and support, and the opportunity to work with offenders in ways known to reduce the risk of reoffending.”

At a national level, inspectors found a disconnect between how Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) described its work with sexual offenders and what was happening in practice. Inspectors found HMPPS had an incomplete picture of this group of offenders, and had not analysed their collective risks and needs. Inspectors have urged HMPPS to address this gap, as the missing information makes it difficult to manage sexual offenders effectively.

The inspection looked at the work of the National Probation Service (NPS), which supervises 106,819 people. Sexual offenders make up around one in five NPS cases. Inspectors found probation staff did not always have the knowledge, skills and support to work with sexual offenders. Inspectors found some staff using outdated tools and techniques in their work, and concluded electronic training and guidance was “largely ineffective”.

Some NPS staff have reported struggling with stress and anxiety, and have found it difficult to switch off after challenging conversations or viewing distressing content. Our national survey of NPS staff showed 60 per cent of employees were ‘not so’ or ‘not at all’ satisfied with the emotional and professional support they receive at work.

On a more positive note, inspectors praised NPS Victim Liaison Officers and the work they did with victims of sexual offences. These officers often went above and beyond in their work to ensure the needs of victims and children were taken into account.

The report found work in prison with men convicted of sexual offending was “poor” overall, and staff were not trained and supported sufficiently well to deliver a service that protects the public and reduces the risk of harm.

Chief Inspector of Prisons Peter Clarke said: “We found too many cases in prisons where little, if anything, was done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. This is serving neither the public interest nor that of those prisoners who need help to change their behaviour before being released back into the community.”

Inspectors found difficulties with the movement of sexual offenders in custody and as they prepared for release. Moving sexual offenders around the prison estate hindered the ability of some men to access support to address their offending behaviour. Moving men from prison to the community was also managed badly; planning for release was nowhere near good enough, and “too little, too late”. Inspectors found communication between NPS staff in the community and prison offender management teams was not effective in many cases, resulting in poor risk management and release plans. This was compounded by a lack of suitable accommodation for sexual offenders.

Accredited programmes were under-used in prison and in the community – even though they can help to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Inspectors found some men on probation had practical barriers to attending programmes, for example because of work commitments or long distances to travel; others were unable to access suitable provision, for example men with learning disabilities. In some cases, individuals did not have a court order to complete an accredited programme but they could have benefitted from the work; probation officers are not using their professional judgment to put men forward. The situation was no better in prison. Inspectors visited five prisons and found two were not running accredited courses at all, despite holding a large number of prisoners convicted of these crimes.

Dame Glenys said: “Our report sets out a series of 15 recommendations for HM Prison and Probation Service, the National Probation Service, and HM Prison Service. We want to see urgent and much-needed progress in the management and supervision of sexual offenders – this work should be given priority in my view.”

--oo00oo--

Yesterday it was the turn of DLNR CRC with yet another mediocre report from Dame Glenys. This is the press release:-

Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland CRC – Organisational strengths, but quality of casework must improve

Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland (DLNR) Community Rehabilitation Company was assessed as requiring improvement, the second lowest rating, in an inspection which identified a mixed performance picture.

It was well led, with a committed leadership and some considerable strengths, including the supervision of unpaid work orders and good quality Through the Gate services on offer to those being released from prison. However, these positive aspects were undermined by some deficiencies in casework, particularly involving domestic abuse.

DLNR is the second CRC owned by the Reducing Reoffending Partnership to be inspected over the past year by HM Inspectorate of Probation. Its sister CRC, Staffordshire and West Midlands, also received a ‘Requires Improvement’ rating in a recent inspection. In individual areas of performance, though, DLNR achieved more Good ratings, and fewer inadequate ratings.

Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation, said there were some common themes between the two inspections.

“Resources are tight in DLNR. Tough decisions have been made by the organisation, including reductions in posts and premises. To make savings, the CRC opted to use a very basic approach to assessing individuals. As a result, the information that is key to effective sentence plans is much too scant. A few months before our inspection, this practice had been changed but it was too early to see improvement.”

Dame Glenys added: “The poor quality of assessments and reviews contributed to the risk of harm not being managed properly in domestic abuse and child safeguarding cases.” This was concerning, given the recommendations the inspectorate made in the 2018 thematic inspection on domestic abuse. That inspection included a visit to Leicester, part of DLNR.

“Key findings from that inspection have been seen again in DLNR. The CRC needs to act quickly to improve its handling of risk of harm, to protect victims,” Dame Glenys said. The report noted: “We found omissions in planning to address child safeguarding and child protection risks in just under half of the cases inspected. Worryingly, in domestic abuse cases, the level of care taken over plans to keep people safe was wholly inadequate.” There were not enough home visits to assess risk and information from other agencies was sought and included in assessments “far too infrequently.”

On a more positive note, however, Dame Glenys said, “we found unpaid work and Through the Gate services to be good. People are seen quickly after sentence and offered services matched to their needs. We saw real drive from all the Through the Gate staff and a recognition that, although outcomes need to improve, they will go the extra mile to provide a good service in demanding prison settings.”

Overall, Dame Glenys said: “Leaders in the CRC are committed and passionate. They aim to provide services that will improve the opportunities of people under probation supervision to move away from crime and rehabilitate. The organisation understands its challenges well… Its attention on quality assurance and continuous improvement has ensured that contractual performance is good, and now the challenge is to lift quality.”