Lets Look at OASys

Here's a thing. OASys is overblown, difficult to use and time consuming. Nobody would argue with that. But, it's aĺl we've got so finding a way to make it work must be something worth shooting for. The QA process was halted last year almost certainly because the results were shockingly poor. There are a lot of easily explained reasons for that not least of which is the pressure of time. The elephant in the room however, is that many practitioners can't get their heads round it and that is, I believe, shocking. What I'm saying here is that we're not as good at what we do as we think and say we are. 

Studies consistently show that the best risk assessments are made using a structured clinical assessment. The sharp end of OASys is exactly that. Who uses the four step risk assessment process in R10.2? It's not rocket science. Who links R10.4 to the RMP contingency plan? Who writes sentence plan objectives in the first person and makes them the focus of every supervision session? Who adapts the sentence plan format to meet the needs of the person they're working with? OASys is the centre of what we do. It gives offenders a means to focus on why they cause harm and therefore, what they need to change to stop. It gives practitioners a structured means to clarify their thinking based on the evidence. 

Would we rather return to the intuitive back of a fag packet methodology of the past? I don't think many of us would. Use and understand the QA standards and you'll find that an initial assessment is a big task but once done sets the stage for the whole supervision process. It makes keeping a focus on the criminogenic needs more straightforward and protects you if things go south at any stage because you can demonstrate that the evidence either didn't indicate it was likely or where it did you had robust contingencies in place which, when risk became apparent, you acted on. It also means that reviews should normally be relatively straightforward and can be hopefully focussed on success and progress. 

We call ourselves a profession but the professional way to deal with a problem is to think around it and implement solutions. I used to hate OASys and there is still much to improve. We're told changes are on the way including a move to Hazel Kemshall's four pillars risk assessment methodology as used in MAPPA. Let's see if they help. I hope they do. In the meantime though it's beholden on us to use what we've got as well as we can.

I expect some kickback from readers for this view but when doing so please remember that I'm one of you and am only trying to find a way to make us more effective and save ourselves from burnout and the encroachment of other agencies.

Anon

*****

OASys is not all we have got if you mean CRC organisations. MTC Novo have developed OMNIA and Risk and Needs an integrated offender assessment system. It is work in progress, clunky to operate and the RMP is not detailed enough for high risk of serious harm cases. But as someone who in the early 2000s was trained by Dr David Forbes, a pioneer of OASys and Ray Cruse a London OASys trainer par excellence I can say OASys is a 20th Century assessment system that is long past sell by date. 

Most CRC staff are dreading going back to being chained to the antediluvian OASys system and are praying that MoJ shows some initiative in going for a 21st century system which is capable of being developed into a useable casework tool, if not OMNIA then a 21st alternative from a different country.

A more fundamental point is you can have a polished OASys ISP and it will not necessarily be a fair and accurate reflection of a service user. Just as having a "robust" MAPPA level 2 plan is not a sinecure that a case is being well managed. They are just pieces of paper at the end of the day. A means of accountability to be sure but I think they miss the heart of risk assessment which is forming an effective working relationship with a service user to get to know the person as well as their risk domains. Maria Ansboro is a firm advocate that this working relationship lies at the heart of the risk assessment as well as being a tool for change. 

To give you an example. Our borough was so far behind in doing Risk and Needs that overtime was offered to reduce the backlog - without interviewing the service user - i.e. using records only. How professional is it to make an assessment of a probation case without interviewing a service user? It happens all the time in our Magistrates' Courts and Crown Courts for FDRs. Would we allow a Doctor to diagnose a patient without interviewing them?

*****

“Who uses the four step risk assessment process in R10.2? It's not rocket science. Who links R10.4 to the RMP contingency plan? Who writes sentence plan objectives in the first person and makes them the focus of every supervision session? Who adapts the sentence plan format to meet the needs of the person they're working with?”

Me. This is quite basic. The problem with OASYS is not that it can be lengthy, as it is the author’s choice to add less or more, but that it cannot be updated without completing an entire new document. More importantly linking the risk summary, risk management plan, SAQ and relevant sections of 2-12 to the sentence plan does help. Some call this “risk management” but in reality we are simply identifying what causes and prevents offending and related circumstances. The problem is that where this relates to a need for education, employment, accommodation, income and forms of support, the probation service 2020 cannot actually offer much beyond a few hit-or-miss referrals and (if you’re lucky) a food back voucher. 

There is also the bias, value judgements and the under and over competence issues blur both the assessment and related decisions. As good as any ISP / OASYS may be, the reality is that circumstances change so quickly that it will only ever be ‘current’ on the day it is written. So whether it's OASYS, ASSET, OMNIA, SARA, RM2000, etc, the practice of basing what is effectively a support service around a risk assessment will always be flawed.

******

"Here's a thing. OASys is overblown, difficult to use and time consuming. Nobody would argue with that. But, it's aĺl we've got so finding a way to make it work must be something worth shooting for.“

Not so colleague. OAsys represents everything I didn’t train to do and is the risk assessment equivalent of monkeys typing Shakespeare. I want to use my skills and training to work with individuals in order to address the underlying cause of their offending and to enable them to change, not to typify, quantify, categorise and pigeon hole.

OAsys is an unwieldy tool that was imposed from above as opposed to being practitioner lead. It was introduced under the guise of addressing the issue of people who were not doing their jobs properly when writing PSRs. As ever, the majority were made to suffer for the perceived failings of the few, as with attendance management, sickness management and other totalitarian policies.

When it was introduced it was a paper document and nobody took it seriously or thought it would last. Instead it has become dogma carved in stone. As ever, once history has been re-written from the perspective of the ruling class, those who follow on know no different and take it as gospel that this is the word, always has been and always will be.

I was trained to be an assessor, a facilitator, an analyst, an explainer, a problem solver, an expert, an officer of the court, a free thinking well trained professional with thoughts, views and ideas, not a keyboard thumper. You can’t engage with people and address their issues through a computer. Unfortunately, the job has changed over the years and many of our recent recruits believe that the people we work with respond well to diktat, threat and punishment, because they lack the insight and the history of life before OASys.

*****
The history has been posted here before - e.g. http://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-final-insult.html

OASys was sold as a single-assessment solution to the multifarious risk assessments that littered various Probation areas but... it was always owned by the prison service. It was piloted as a paper tool by both probation & prison staff, was evaluated by the prison service psychologist Danny Clark (awarded a gong for his efforts) & other HMPS staff:

"1.2 The development of OASys

OASys was developed through three pilot studies running from 1999 to 2001 (Howard, Clark and Garnham, 2006). An electronic version of the tool was then rolled-out across both the prison and probation services, with a new single system being implemented in 2013 through the OASys-R project. The value of the tool has been summarised as follows: “OASys is a central part of evidence-based practice. It is designed to be an integral part of the work which practitioners do in assessing offenders; identifying the risks they pose, deciding how to minimise those risks and how to tackle offending behaviour effectively. OASys is designed to help practitioners make sound and defensible decisions” (Home Office, 2002)."

See:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449357/research-analysis-offender-assessment-system.pdf

See also:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5e7e/51b14c5ebb8d6ef496f2cf47b138d00be6a8.pdf

Unfortunately many of the links to the research no longer work.

*****

The problem for me was that the OASYS QA (or PIT before that) was rolled out as if it was practitioners who were the problem - clearly if OASYS asks "when is the risk likely to be greatest, consider if risk is immediate or not" people will write answer exactly that - "the risk is likely to be greatest when....the risk is not immediate, he's in custody" or crap like that. The problem is clearly OASYS - if you want an analysis of victim groups, likelihood of serious harm, a meaningful assessment of the nature of harm beyond "physical harm...and emotional harm" then you clearly need to ASK for that.

So rather than this being delivered as the "OASYS improvement tool" it was delivered as a "practitioner" improvement tool...it was unfair, got staff annoyed, they refused to engage with it, all got poor or needs more work and we are in the mess we are in now. And then we get Kulvinder Vigurs (head of London) sending a perplexing organisational message essentially saying "Once again in the 2020 staff survey you say we don't manage change well....I really want to understand why this is the case" - seriously??

Not to mention of course that we all KNOW that writing sources of information in six different places, writing assessor and offender comments, writing SO MUCH crap in "current situation" most of which is recorded elsewhere MEANS NOTHING to the end user, both probation officer and those on probation. The OASYS QA simply made what was already a very painful process even worse.

Frankly you are all right - let's face it, we decide who is high/medium/low/very high before we even open the first page; I don't think I've ever got to section nine hundred and thought "oh my god, I've just realised, this person is a danger"; I don't think I've ever gone into writing an OASYS thinking "I need OASYS to tell me if drugs, alcohol and lifestyle are the issues here". Seriously, the organisation frankly needs to get it's head out of OASYS, rethink what the role and purpose of assessment is, create a document which works for all and slap it on a Word for Windows document. And understand that THIS is what leads to staff attrition.

--oo00oo--

Posted a couple of days ago:-

"In December last year, the Post Office agreed to pay nearly £60 million in compensation to more than 550 of its workers and former workers, after losing a High Court battle. It was a key victory for Sub-postmasters after a 20 year fight for justice. Many hold the Post Office responsible for destroying their lives by falsely accusing them of theft and fraud. Some ended up in prison, others completely bankrupt - and many have been left with their health and reputations in ruins.

File on 4 investigates how the Horizon computer system, brought in to Post Office branches in 2000, could have led to accounting shortfalls at branches - and asks why for years the Post Office denied this was possible, instead pursuing its own Sub-postmasters for the money, which may have never been missing in the first place."

I'm sitting here listening to this programme & having vivid flashbacks to more than one disciplinary hearing where entries on OASys, including a fully completed PSR awaiting countersigning, were missing & the PO in each case was found culpable for failing to undertake their duty, despite their insistence they had entered the data &/or completed the necessary tasks.

Coincidentally I've recently been preparing for a house-move & found printed copies of emails that I'd 'squirrelled away' where IT staff in that Probation Trust admitted they'd been instructed to delete data linked to those cases. They stopped short of identifying the instructing manager. I also kept copies of communications with several layers of Napo about these matters which shows the Napo staff were variously out of their depth, not interested or actively refusing to take the matters forward. The stench is everywhere.

Some excerpts confirming the outcome of a disciplinary hearing linked to similar issues:

"The disciplinary hearing was arranged following an investigation regarding concerns about the overall case management of ... This followed completion of a serious further offence review. The investigation concluded your alleged actions had breached sections of the Standards of Behaviour/Code of Conduct... XX presented the Management Case regarding the non-completion of PSR OASys and subsequent lack of recording of your records... you maintain these were completed but there was no evidence of this recorded on our systems to substantiate this took place... nor is there any record of a DV Assessment Form in that (a) it cannot be located nor (b) is it recorded on our system, despite your claims to the contrary. It is therefore my reasonable belief that this was not completed..."

I experienced a similar attempt to discredit me but because the computer system had been regularly crashing at the time, I kept paper copies of all of my work. The good fortune of that decision became apparent when, after a couple of days away at a training event, I returned to be confronted with the threat of disciplinary action. I produced the paper copies & suddenly there was no investigation into the missing the records - history was revised & it was accepted as being the consequence of a computer failure. Some months later an IT worker who was leaving the Trust rang & told me who had instructed them to delete the records. They weren't prepared to be a witness but said "its only fair you know who it was." And that was when we were 'Trusts'... I can't imagine what it must be like under the dead hand of HMPPS.