Would You Adam and Eve It!

We live in a supposedly advanced and sophisticated society where we follow the science, strive for improvement and become ever-more efficient and effective. So how come it's taken so bloody long to finally get around to noticing the effing obvious that if you speed up justice by ditching full PSR's you end up with piss-poor results? What happened to PSR's is an utter disgrace! This from HMI Probation finally spells it out:-      

Conclusion

A key NPS responsibility is to provide advice and information to help judges and magistrates decide on the most appropriate sentence for individual service users. Recent years have seen a focus on speed and timeliness, with a shift from standard delivery reports to oral reports, and an NPS performance metric measuring the percentage of reports completed within the timescales set by the court. The findings in this bulletin clearly demonstrate that the focus upon speed and timeliness has had an impact upon quality. Notably, inspectors were less likely to judge that the pre-sentence information and advice was sufficiently analytical and personalised to the service user when an oral report was delivered.

Responses to the underpinning prompt questions reveal a number of issues with oral reports. They were less likely to have drawn sufficiently upon available sources of information, with information from other agencies not always shared in the time necessary to be included in the reports. They were less likely to have considered factors related to both risk of harm and the likelihood of reoffending, with less time for report authors to consider and reflect upon the information which was available. Unsurprisingly, the final proposal was then less likely to be deemed sufficient, and there was less likely to be a sufficient record of the advice and the reasoning. In some cases, it was clear that insufficient attention had been given to the appropriateness of accredited programmes or other treatment requirements. 

The quality of pre-sentence information and advice not only impacts upon the court’s decision-making but also has an impact post-sentence – with high quality PSRs assisting responsible officers in timely and sufficient assessment and sentence planning following allocation of the case. The obvious trade-off is one between speed at court and the need for more work post-sentence to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the service user’s risks, needs, skills and strengths, enabling service delivery to be sufficiently focused and personalised. 

The potential dangers from a pre-sentence focus upon speed and timeliness have been flagged previously by Robinson (2017), who stated as follows: 

“In the new court culture of speed, timeliness… is an important quality for PSRs, but as a sole measure of quality it leaves a great deal to be desired. Courts certainly do want reports to be timely, but they are not factories; they exist to dispense justice. Thus, whilst speed has become a key value for courts, it is not the only value that matters to them: they continue to want reports that are wellinformed, accurate and useful in enabling them to pass sentences that are proportionate, suitable for the individual and unlikely to put the public at risk.”

In the 2019 ‘Proposed Future Model for Probation: A Draft Operating Blueprint’, HMPPS have emphasised their commitment to improving the quality of our advice to courts and PSRs. The following changes are proposed: 

“We will revise the ratio of different report types to promote improved risk assessment and pre-sentence advice. 

We will reduce the percentage of oral reports on women, BAME offenders and those at risk of short-term imprisonment to improve the quality of assessments, identification of offending related needs and the targeting to appropriate interventions. 

We will improve the targeting of offenders to sentence requirements specifically in relation to treatment requirements and rehabilitation requirements, and ensure appropriate engagement with liaison and diversion services.” 

The findings in this bulletin are clearly supportive of these reforms. In relation to the highlighting of specific sub-groups, the bulletin indicates that reports were less likely to be judged sufficiently analytical and personalised for those with a high likelihood of reoffending. These service users tend to have multiple and complex needs, requiring careful consideration to be given to the most appropriate interventions and how they can be integrated into a coherent and holistic programme of work. 

In the more recent draft Target Operating Model (HMPPS, 2020), it is further stated that ‘Probation Practitioners in Court will carry out their duties with victims and potential victims in mind’. This bulletin also demonstrates that improvements are required here – we found that the impact of the offence(s) on known/identifiable victims had not been considered in one in three cases. Attention needs to be given to the format of all types of report so that there is a sufficient focus on victim impact, and to ensuring that victim statements and CPS documents are available to report writers. 

Within the Inspectorate, we will continue to pay careful attention to the quality of PSRs, with our inspection standards specifying what is expected in terms of the support provided to courts. We are very clear that any focus on speed and timeliness should not be at the cost of overall quality. Operating alongside our inspection ratings, we will seek to demonstrate to the NPS where they need to focus, helping to drive improvement where it is required. 

Finally, this bulletin has compared oral reports, short format reports and standard delivery reports, and it is important to recognise that, alongside the decline of cases coming to court, these has also been some shift to dispensing with any form of report. The 2015 Levenson Review called for more discretion to dispense with reports, as well as the greater use oral reports or previous reports, which was followed by the Better Case Management programme advising that Crown Court cases no longer required a PSR when there was no realistic alternative to custody. The impact of dispensing with any form of PSR is clearly deserving of further attention.

--oo00oo--

Oh look - the penny really has dropped and the command and control civil service are on the case like a shot:-

PSR [Pre Sentencing Reports] Pilot Project Manager (Ref: 36448)

Job description

We welcome and encourage applications from everyone, including groups currently underrepresented in our workforce and pride ourselves as being an employer of choice. To find out more about how we champion diversity and inclusion in the workplace, visit: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/equality-and-diversity

Since 2010 there has been a significant decline in the use of the PSR, this phenomenon was explored by a Ministerially commissioned review by the Implementation Unit. The Unit concluded that that the purpose of the PSR has been lost and the Judiciary have very different views on the benefits of the PSR, and when one is deemed necessary. As a result the PSR is often deprioritised in favour of avoiding delay.

The Implementation Unit recommended that further work is undertaken to define the purpose of the PSR and better understand the balance between avoiding delay whilst ensuring that quality PSRs are delivered where necessary.

The National Court Team, led by Roz Hamilton, are delighted to confirm that funding has been awarded to deliver a PSR pilot across a number of courts in England and Wales. The hypothesis that will be tested is:

The increased delivery of quality and timely PSRs for certain offenders in magistrate courts will improve offender outcomes and the administration efficiency in justice by evaluating the impact of an alternative delivery model.

We are seeking a Project Manager for an initial 18 month contract, to plan, implement and oversee the delivery of these pilots. We are seeking an individual who is able to bring tenacity, innovation and resilience to support this high profile national pilot. The successful candidate will be highly organised and able to apply a project management approach. They will be able to work and engage with a wide range of stakeholders to generate the confidence of NPS court staff, HMCTS, the Judiciary and other CJS partners. The ability to work at pace along with outstanding verbal and written skills are critical to this work.

Overview of the job

Working at the direction of the Head of Operational Function the post holder will be deployed to a variety of roles in order to provide strategic support.

Summary

To support the Head of LDU Cluster providing management and leadership within the National Probation Service (NPS) Local Delivery Unit (LDU).

To represent the Head of LDU Cluster with external agencies/stakeholders and staff as appropriate.

The post holder must adhere to all policies in respect of the sensitive/confidential nature of the information handled whilst working in this position. May be required to participate in out of hours on call rota.

Responsibilities, Activities & Duties

Senior Operational Support Manager may be required to undertake any combination, or all, of the duties and responsibilities as directed by the Head of Operational Function as set out below.

• Cluster operational lead on caseload segmentation issues such as Child Sexual Exploitation, Guns and Gangs, Integrated Offender Management etc.
• Operational support to the Head of Cluster within relevant Probation Instruction criteria and rules such as Recall, High Risk of Serious Harm Case Transfers, etc.
• Providing support to the Head of Cluster within the relevant Probation Instruction criteria and rules such as, grievance, discipline, capability, complaints, etc.
• Responsible for the professional development of cluster staff
• Responsible for developing and deploying the Cluster Training Needs Analysis
• Ensure effective cluster employee recruitment and induction
• Act as cluster lead for performance & quality
• Act as cluster lead for audits and inspections
• Operational support to the Head of Cluster in completing reviews and delivery of action plans such as Domestic Homicides, Serious Further Reviews, Serious Case Reviews, etc.
• Responsible for the management of the Business Manager and the administrative support functions within the cluster
• Under the guidance of the Head of LDU Cluster; represent the NPS in local strategic partnerships and ensure appropriate representation within wider partnership frameworks in line with statutory responsibilities and operational policy
• Participate in the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) locally in conjunction with other responsible authorities including the chairing of MAPPA level 3 meetings
• In the absence of the Head of LDU Cluster to make decisions and provide advice on the management of offenders where senior management authorisation or involvement is necessary e.g. authorising the recall of offenders to prison
• Operational support to the Head of cluster in the management of complaints within the cluster and direct involvement in complaint resolution where necessary
• Under the guidance of the Head of LDU Cluster to take the lead on specific divisional or cluster projects/portfolios including Equality and Diversity, Reward and Recognition, etc.
• Operational support to the Head of cluster in cluster compliance with Health and Safety legislation.
• Senior Management responsibility for estates, buildings and maintenance activities within the cluster
• Demonstrate pro-social modelling skills by consistently reinforcing pro-social behaviour and attitudes and challenging anti-social behaviour and attitudes
• Carry out safeguarding children and safeguarding adult duties in accordance with the NPS statutory responsibilities and agency policies
• Work within the aims and values of NPS and HMPPS

The duties/responsibilities listed above describe the post at present and are not exhaustive. The job holder is expected to accept reasonable alteration sand additional tasks of a similar level that may be necessary. Significant adjustments may require re-examination under job evaluation and shall be discussed in the first instance with the job holder.

Behaviours

• Leadership
• Making Effective Decisions
• Working Together
• Delivering at Pace
• Communicating and Influencing
• Managing a Quality Service
• Changing and Improving

Essential Experience

• Significant experience at middle manager level, including the management of staff
• Experience of monitoring performance in area of responsibility against predetermined targets, setting local targets and effecting necessary improvements
• Experience of budgetary control incl. procurement
• Experience of managing relationships incl. working with key local agencies and stakeholders
• Evidence of preparing high level written reports to a good standard

Technical requirements

A qualification in one of the following areas:

• Probation Qualification Framework Graduate Diploma/Honours Degree in Community Justice integrated with Level 5 Diploma in Probation Practice.
• Or, a qualification which was recognised at the time of qualification by the Secretary of State for Justice as per Section 10 of the Offender Management Act 2007. The following qualifications gained in England and Wales were previously recognised as providing such eligibility:
• Diploma in Probation Studies
• Diploma in Social Work (with Probation Option)
• CQSW (with Probation Option)

Knowledge of the wider criminal justice system