Regular readers will be only too well aware of my long-term antithesis towards OASys, the most fiendish of inventions designed to consume vast amounts of time to absolutely no useful purpose. Over the years we have discussed its corrosive and harmful consequences at length but which seem perfectly suited to the command and control ethos of HMPPS. Bearing this in mind, it's likely that the following research from the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology and reported by CEP will be of interest:-
Probation officer risk assessments are used to make key criminal justice decisions and to allocate resources. To ensure validity and reliability, they must be based on factors proven within empirical research to link to recidivism and undertaken with a transparent approach. This study aims to explore whether risk assessment judgements vary between groups of practitioners and what factors influence probation decisions about risk. The research questions were explored by discussing constructed vignettes in focus groups across six locations. The study adds to the conceptual understanding of risk in probation practice. The findings have led to recommendations for further research and suggestions for probation policy and training.
INTERPRETAION OF RISK FACTORS
There was a commonality in the risk factors considered across the groups but the interpretation of how the factors impact on risk was different. Factors meant different things to different practitioners. The offence detail carried most weight in assessing risk, meaning practitioners assess the offence and not the offender. Generic risk factors were considered, rather than information specific to the individual. Crucially, psychological factors were not considered at all.
LOCAL PRACTICE
Variation of outcome was found across an individual and an office level with demographics of assessors and office location being possible contributory factors to risk assessment. All focus groups felt middle manager influence had the ability to dominate assessments. Regardless of a probation officer making a trained assessment, collating and analysing data, it can be altered by a middle manager. Ultimately leading to someone who has not met or interviewed the offender making the decision on the risk category. This authority to change assessments was viewed negatively by practitioners.
ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND TIME
Ultimately the participants expressed a distrust in static scores suggesting they do not use them to form their final risk assessment. By not recognising the strength of such tools, probation officers are conducting assessments based entirely on individual, clinical judgements. Practitioners stated they avoid reviewing assessments due to time available, so the recorded risk and the actual assessed risk may be different. All officers stated time impacted on their assessment. In practice this meant practitioners could find more information to verify a high risk assessment. The number of high-risk cases appears to be dependent on the amount of time an officer has to spend on an assessment. In policy resource is specified to follow risk, but in practice risk may also follow resource.
FINDINGS
Probation Officer risk assessment varies by; - how officers interpret risk factors. - middle manager influence and local practice. - faith in tools and time to use them. - perception of service user trust and honesty. - familiarity with service user and offence. - fear of getting it wrong.
TRUST AND HONESTY
The consistent starting point with all groups was; risky until proven otherwise. The focus groups did not talk about the reciprocity of trust. By viewing trust as a one-way interaction, probation officers may, therefore, be limiting their value in the desistance process. Honesty was unique to other considerations in this study as it was viewed as a personal betrayal against the probation officer. The offenders were not just seen as breaching rules, they perceived as lying to the individual officer. Probation officers expected interactions to be meaningful and engaging. Silence was presumed as guilt and a factor which increased risk. Probation officers increased risk if an offender was not open and transparent in their interactions. In certain scenarios, this extended to the offender’s family. The relationship between offender and probation officer was a factor which influenced risk assessments. As the relationship between offender and probation officer may affect compliance and engagement, compliance and engagement affect probation officer risk assessments.
FAMILIARITY
Risk assessments were influenced not just by offence type, but also by the officers’ familiarity with assessing that offence type. The more familiar with an offence type an officer felt, the lower the risk. Probation officers anchor, or hold on to, previous behaviour which lead to a high-risk assessment. In making current assessments they show a bias towards this anchor and interpret current information to have similar characteristics. This resulted in an aversion to depart from a high risk assessment. Reluctance to reduce risk was echoed across all focus groups. The reason for this was specified as a fear of being wrong.
FEAR OF GETTING IT WRONG
All the focus groups discussed a sense of responsibility and a moral duty to get their risk assessments right. The pressure from public and professional scrutiny was discussed in all groups. The probation officers commented that they felt personally accountable and this influenced their risk assessments making them more risk averse, for fear of being dismissed. This factor was distinctive because probation officers consciously knew they changed risk assessments due to fear. The change was always in one direction, making them more risk averse.
Q: Do risk assessment judgements vary between groups of practitioners?
A: Yes, risk assessments vary. Office location, age of practitioner and experience of practitioner impacted on the risk assessments of the sample. Some officers and some probation teams were more risk averse than others. One of the reasons for this appeared to be familiarity with making assessments on certain offence types. Where an office perceived an offence to be more frequent, risk was assessed as medium. Where an offence was considered unusual, officers allocated a higher risk category. However, all focus groups showed an a conscious, tendency to inflate risk assessments due to a fear of being wrong and being subjected to scrutiny. They described this anxiety as a relatively recent phenomenon in their practice with is growing over time.
“We up [increase] our assessments because we are so nervous about being hauled over the coals.”
Q: What are the factors that influence decisions about risk?
A: The most critical risk factor in assessing risk across all focus groups was offence details. There was a complete lack of psychological risk factors being used. Generic risk factors, such as substance abuse, were used to assess risk even when there was no apparent association to the specific offender being assessed. Trust and honesty were defined in a consistent way by probation officers, but the duration required for an offender to prove trustworthiness varied. Risk was increased to secure resources. There was a commonality in the risk factors used but variety in the interpretation of whether a risk factor increased or decreased a risk.
“We have no shared accommodation, so increase the risk to high to get an AP. Or put to high risk at a recall to avoid a 28 day walkout.”
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The study has highlighted a training need for probation officers regarding the importance of assessing psychological factors, how to interpret risk factors and whether they increase or decrease risk. A disregard of actuarial tools resulted in statistical evidence proven to assess risk being missed from assessments, possibly leading to a reduction in accuracy. Training could be provided to increase probation officers’ knowledge of such tools to increase their perceived legitimacy and subsequent use. Training completed at a local level may reinforce local practice, which has contributed to variation. As such, training which has participants from multiple office locations may be beneficial. Middle manager influence was found to both undermine probation officers and result in assessments being competed without any contact with the offender. Policy regarding the value of this may wish to be considered, as could training for middle managers.
This research has highlighted a developing practice of defensive decision making for fear of being wrong. To prevent this, more is required than merely training to increase accuracy. To challenge this fear, probation officers must feel confident that they are viewed as professionals making skilled decisions and supported if it goes wrong. But it must be recognised that they cannot predict the future. Policy makers may wish to consider this in developing processes for reviewing serious further offences and messages communicated about such incidents. Structured professional support may be required in the aftermath of a serious further offence to mitigate against the nervousness of scrutiny and error. Clinical supervision may allow time for probation officers to reflect and refine their skills. This supervision is best placed away from middle-manager influence.
“Ultimately, I will get the sack if I get it wrong. For my own ass covering I leave them as high”
CONCLUSION
This research illustrates the individuality and subjectivity of assessing risk and that this can result in variations. The study found that probation officer risk assessments vary in both method and outcome. How, where and who undertakes an assessment can impact on the outcome by considering or interpreting factors differently. This variation provides an unequal provision of service, or justice by geography. As a member of the public, a politician or service user, there may be an expectation of fairness and legitimacy in risk assessment practice. This cannot be realised if two practitioners, in two different locations make different assessments given the same information. Probation officers do not consider all risk factors defined in empirical evidence and have a mistrust of some tools. The implications of this, is increased subjectivity, inconsistency, reduced accuracy and diminished legitimacy. What became apparent during this study was an overarching, and conscious, practice of defensive decision making by probation officers. The fear of getting it wrong was developing a risk averse culture. Probation officers spoke passionately, mostly knowledgably, sometimes not so knowledgably, and professionally about how to assess risk and, worryingly, how they feel under impossible pressure to predict the future. It is hoped that this study will encourage additional research, training and support to ensure probation officers make accurate, legitimate and defensible assessments.
Deputy Head of Probation - Black Country
HMPPS
Thank you Jim, and thank you Cambridge IoC. Finally, an independent meaningful warts-and-all review of the pseudo-science, the punitive risk-averse ham-fest that is the probation 'risk assessment' whilst (1) using shyte tools that aren't fit for purpose and (2) working in a climate of control and command:
ReplyDelete"Regardless of a probation officer making a trained assessment, collating and analysing data, it can be altered by a middle manager. Ultimately leading to someone who has not met or interviewed the offender making the decision on the risk category"
I hope HMPPS/NPS are listening to this study, when their risk assessment process is described as having the following attributes: "increased subjectivity, inconsistency, reduced accuracy and diminished legitimacy."
How can the courts, or anyone, have faith in the legitimacy of probation assessments when it is said:
"What became apparent during this study was an overarching, and conscious, practice of defensive decision making by probation officers. The fear of getting it wrong was developing a risk averse culture."
They ignored their critics, they pushed ahead with their agenda - now HMPPS/NPS will have to face the music on this. It is made explicit in this study where the faults lie, for example:
"Middle manager inluence was found to both undermine probation officers and result in assessments being competed without any contact with the offender."
And - no excuses but - the middle managers will be shyting *their* nappies because of the pressure they feel from above - its an all-pile-on scenario which STARTS AT THE TOP in the hierarchical, JFDI control-&-command structure.
Time to reassess the dystopian 'risk management' sleight-of-hand. Its been a lucrative business for some, its resulted in decorations for others - but its been a just another shambolic example of smoke-&-mirrors.
The professional role of the Probation practitioner has been whittled away to leave an army of keyboard warriors doing the subjective bidding of management.
That this farce is exposed is long overdue.
Well done Cambridge IoC!
And yet us psos doing the same job get a lot less money for form filling .
DeleteUnfortunately, some moons ago, a raft of eager unqualified staff lobbied hard to be allowed to hold their own caseloads, to write reports, to deliver programmes.
DeleteIts not that they weren't able or capable, its that they weren't qualified and therefore not paid at the appropriate rate.
They won their battle, with the blessings of the Trust chiefs (why wouldn't they? The business model said they could now reduce expensive PO posts & increase cheaper PSO posts) and the unions (never figured that one out).
And ever since we've had PSOs complaining they don't get paid the same rate as POs.
Kier Starmer continues the attack Corbyn despite there being no Labour Nec action. Probation officers continue to attack PSO as a grade and always attack each other and from the top down. Whether it be competencies or arguments of workload it is never role boundary these days. Vlos got paid at level 4 as a Pso non probation qualified Job. Managers in areas got a grade 5 pay. Because they were evaluated to hold responsibilities and the job demanded such. There was an agreed national scheme on pay fairness. POs shouted these grading down. Against colleagues jobs . Pos from within Napo union also shouted and deceitfully agreed down the VLO pay. Nationally the MOJ have not reduced any pay arising from issues of protections. They were never going to manage a structured approach to reduce staff pay. It is easier to just leave many staff unfairly abused. Those moons ago you mention is where we were when the national pay was badly structured that no fairness or consistency existed. Pay was a devolved local issue. The Napo incompetence has allowed and encouraged differential pay structuring. This is both stupid and dishonest. The overpaid and overweight Animal farm leadership of MoJ \ napo has neither the intelligence or intention to get it onto a national fair reset for all staff gradings. Napo sided with the employers by failing to do their job by properly registering a failure to agree. Lodge a national dispute on equal pay and resist the planned napo agreed national down grading of our members.
DeleteTo date it has never arrived. However they left half the VLOs on low pay and low pensions and for the same work without equal pay.
POs continue to decry claim these other grades are not qualified . Many non PO staff have degrees in relevant social sciences and yet Most POs these days with many from the CQSW and Dip SW eras could hardly claim those training regimes were actually 1 of any real use in todays job.
2 The duties are not really dependant on a few old Nellis based studies on just deserts or the like. 3 The average sociology degree or A level is better than most current PO qualifications. Especially that old chestnut of role play CQSW rubbish and a reflective account of what i learnt this century. That was neither an A level or a degree standard. Most PSOs do Oasys and manage risk assessment its easy. Most PSO grade manage and see High risk offenders that is easy too. Breach and court work easy. Role boundaries another old chestnut saw many arguments to hold a PO demarcation line for something that had already been eclipsed. Scrounging to find a professional last stand on a piece of claimed skilled work. Something that meant a PO had some special task left for them. Now what was it ?? Oh yes it was the last piece in the jigsaw writing authoring those famous SIR \ PSR whatever incarnation it has had many names. These days a rarity no longer of any use as replaced by verbal reports and suchlike and guess what delivered by PSOs . Cheaper maybe better yes Pso are not fogged in with uppity false self proclaimed status and elitist entiled belief of self importance. For what, being qualified in nothing specialised nor professional. Doctors are professionals nurses are skilled teachers Lawyers firefighters surgeons. Pos today are on par with a bus driver or possibly a taxi driver but definitely not as skilled as monkey with a cup and an organ grinder. Keeping attacking workers from within which is why probation was so easy to be destroyed.
If the jobs on par with a bus driver, why would expect anything more then bus drivers pay?
DeleteWell, exactly so why do you expect more than a PSO for the same job then .
DeleteQualified.
DeleteWhat the blooming 'eck is this person talking about? An unbelievably divisive, irrational and unfounded rant. You'd never get this from a qualified PO.
DeleteOf course you would do you not recognise your own self importance and elitism bleeding through ignoring the issues and uppity . You' never get this from a qualified po. Oh yes you would. Do some analysis than shouting off.
DeleteBus drivers are qualified 2350 look on the world has lots of indents pos are qualified for what exactly. PSOs do it all on less money.
Deletequalified or not qualified - you're not getting any more pay.
DeleteNo one is . Tory rule and the po put downs culture is the same as Tory rule.
DeleteQualified in what ? Not answerable then either .
DeleteForgive me for butting in, but from what I can see here the issue isn't that there shouldn't necessarily be two different/distinct roles, or two distinct/different pay grades - but at present PSO's (in the NPS, not sure about CRC) are pretty much doing exactly the same job and working with the same offender groups. When I started in probation, the role of a PSO was (generally) to supervise community orders for offences of driving, theft, unpaid work orders, curfew requirements and so on. They gained a certain expertise in those type of offences/risks/orders and it was a perfectly valid job.
DeleteRoll on thirteen years and one of my old offenders popped into my head; "number 1" gang member in my area, very violent, very difficult to work with - I'm not saying I did a great job with him, he ended up getting re-allocated and ultimately was one of my big failures, I'm not proud of that. But I looked into his case to see that one year one someone had reduced his risk to medium after a recall/re-release and as a result a PSO was now "co-working" the case, although the case was allocated to a PO who as far as I could see was doing absolutely NOTHING. I'm not questioning the skills and competencies of the PSO, as I say my own skills with him were questionable - but it IS unfair that this PSO is relatively new to the organisation, has NOT had a two year training programme like I did, has NOT had the breadth of experience of working with that type of person, and as argued above, is on a MUCH lower pay.
So it's not a matter of PO's arguing with PSO's about what pay or training they should or shouldn't have - the point is the roles have become so merged that has created division and unhappiness - and who do I blame - oh what a surprise, our "breathtaking" and "5 star rated by HMIP" senior leadership teams.
Thank you another realist who is able to share a truth. Qualification counts for nothing in today's services. CRC gave jobs to zero skilled and no experienced staffing who end up in high risk. Odd when it should not be I a CRC anyway. The big issues are to level pay re evaluate what we do and grade duties fairly. The union's should be waging war on these exploitative terms and yet Napo both stagnant and constipated by the bloating tub thumper. We need a fair pay deal a reset and a united staff group. The NPS took probation in civil service without pension benefits or CS pay structures. They continue the depressed old terms.
DeleteArguing down grades against colleagues on pay both internally and absent of a real enforcement of the job evaluation process only helps employers. There are no plans to address this and the current Napo leadership sold all staff down the river . The group are incompetant. It directly promotes the discord and then do not have a plan to lead members into consolidated action to force the employers to negotiate. Useless Napo is not a union but a poor professional association and lacks the understanding to protect the po grade and all staff for fair deals and a genuine demarcation of professional assesment duties.
The business model has for a very long time centred on feeding the machine and its indicators. "Leaders" encouraging staff to "game" the work to feed the machine, shouldnt be too taken aback to learn that staff will "game" the assessments to a)watch their backs come the ever dreaded SFO, b)get the maximum workload weighting for each case. No brainer.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, 11:14. I recall a phase in the Trusts when management went through all assessments in order to down-grade the risk, in order to "free up resources".
ReplyDelete"The offence detail carried most weight in assessing risk, meaning practitioners assess the offence and not the offender. Generic risk factors were considered, rather than information specific to the individual."
ReplyDeleteI find that worrying. If that is indeed how it works, then why would you need a qualified probation officer to make the assessment?
I think annon @09:36 makes an extremely important point, and should be considered within the context of the research done by the Cambridge Institute.
It's not a question of capability, it's the erosion of professional qualifications that's damaging.
Erosion of qualifications reduces bargaining power for the workforce and skews the employer/employee relationship in favour of the employer. They can then pay less, demand more, and dictate practice.
I'd argue that what the Cambridge Institute describes is largely a consequence of what annon @09:36 speaks about of.
'Getafix
Assessing risk? Try assessing these overt gestures of where the Trump administration wants to take the world:
ReplyDelete* Pompeo makes unprecedented visit to Israeli settlement in West Bank - The trip to Psagot comes a year after Mr Pompeo said the settlements did not contradict international law, reversing a long-held US position.
Mr Pompeo will later pay a similar visit to the occupied Golan Heights.
* The US has declared as anti-Semitic a prominent international movement which calls for a complete boycott of Israel over its treatment of the Palestinians.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) was "a cancer", adding the US would stop funding groups linked to it.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the move "wonderful".
uk if-we-give-you-xmas-with-family-and-friends-you-mustn't shout-at-us-when-thousands-more-die-at-the-end-of-january govt covid-19 data for thurs 19 nov
ReplyDeletenew cases: 23,000 (give or take a handful)
deaths: 501 last 24/hours : 2,007 running total week to date
testing: 365,000 yesterday : capacity = 536,000 yesterday
ventilators: 1,430 yesterday
in hospital: 16,409 (Tuesday)
FranK.
Meanwhile, back in the Secure Nursery Facility:
ReplyDelete"THE COVID DRUGS NOW AVAILABLE TO MAKE PEOPLE BETTER ARE AMAZING, BUT SELDOM TALKED ABOUT BY THE MEDIA! Mortality rate is 85% down!"
US death toll: 250,898
"US sees highest Covid-19 death toll in months as deaths top a quarter of a million"
UK deaths per 100K/population = 80.27
US deaths per 100K/population = 76.57
(johns hopkins university)
FranK.
Priti Aunty leads a charmed life:
ReplyDelete"A long-awaited investigation into allegations of bullying by Priti Patel must be published without delay, Labour has demanded amid reports it found she broke the rules for ministers.
A draft report last summer found the Home Secretary had breached the requirements in the ministerial code to treat civil servants with consideration and respect – although any bullying may not have been "intentional" – according to the BBC.
Earlier, the Financial Times reported that Boris Johnson had decided only to issue her with a written warning rather than dismissing her from the Cabinet as would normally be the case for a breach of the code."
'non-intentional bullying'?
Sounds like... [insert whatever you wish here]
https://cyberbullying.org/unintentional_bully
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/623895/Preventing_and_tackling_bullying_advice.pdf
The language of this Bloomberg report is important:
ReplyDelete"NEW: The Trump campaign is seeking to withdraw its Michigan election lawsuit, saying the litigation achieved its goal of derailing the certification of election results in Detroit and surrounding Wayne County"
Anyone heard the one about the 4-year public sector pay freeze? Just what beleaguered Probation staff need eh?. Just remember who had their snouts in the fucking trough when the money was hurled at senior management to oversee the EDM shitfest. They won't starve, don't you fucking worry...
ReplyDeleteFrom BBC website:-
DeleteMillions of public sector workers face a pay freeze at next week's Spending Review, the BBC has learned. It comes as Chancellor Rishi Sunak makes the case for pay restraint to reflect a fall in private sector earnings this year.
The Treasury is trying to bolster the public finances after a huge rise in spending to fight coronavirus. It declined to comment but pointed to language used by Mr Sunak in a letter about the Spending Review in July.
It outlined that in the "interest of fairness we must exercise restraint in future public sector pay awards, ensuring that across this year and the spending review period, public sector pay levels retain parity with the private sector".
The Treasury has also taken interest in a report by the Centre for Policy Studies that suggested a three-year freeze could save £23bn by 2023, or £15bn if NHS workers were exempt.
In September the Office for National Statistics calculated that public sector workers on average earned 7% more than private sector workers last year. Any gap would have further widened in a year that has seen falls in private earnings during pandemic shutdowns, while public sector wages have been maintained. The chancellor's wish to maintain "parity" indicates that a freeze or cap on pay levels in the coming years will be justified as a response to the divergence.
The pay of some 5.5 million public sector workers could be affected, with just under half that number having pay deals set by pay review bodies. It is expected that NHS workers would be exempt from a freeze, to reflect efforts during the pandemic. But most of those affected include key workers lauded for their service during the pandemic, from the armed forces and police, to teachers and civil servants.
In July, almost 900,000 public sector workers were given an above-inflation pay rise - including doctors and teachers - because of their "vital contribution" during the pandemic. But there were complaints that many workers missed out, and unions plan to campaign against the new pay freeze.
Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "Reports of pay restraint for all but frontline NHS staff would be a cruel body blow to other health, care and public service employees working tirelessly to get us through the pandemic. It would also backfire badly with the public. "The government must do what's right next week and announce the wage rise all staff have more than earned. Anything less risks destroying morale when the entire country is counting on them."
The savings on pay come as government borrowing stands near a peacetime record and the national debt is worth more than the size of the economy. UK government borrowing hit £36.1bn in September - £28.4bn more than last year and the third highest in any month since records began in 1993. Meanwhile public debt rose further above the £2tn mark, to £2.06tn.
Fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility will also publish its first full assessment since March of the economic and fiscal impact of the pandemic.
So. What price a cost of living rise this year for NPS now I wonder. Whilst other parts of the public sector deservingly received above inflation rises over the summer to account for their extra efforts during the pandemic we got fuck all. We were told to wait for the annual round of secret negotiations to be concluded with the usual six month delay after they were due. As of now we know nothing of these deliberations. Are talks even happening? And the day after that upper class clown announced a huge cash injection for a department even more wasteful and innefficient than the MoJ in some weird attempt to assert that Britannia is somehow still relevant in the world we get this news about a Public Sector pay freeze. The defence of the realm he says. What about the maintenance of the social fabric of the fucking realm? After losing 26% of our income in realm terms over 9 years of austerity we're looking at a similar shafting again under a Tory government. What will we do about it? Strike, work to rule, shut down the Courts. Campaign in the media, shout from the rooftops? No, we'll bend over and politely ask our "outsanding leaders" to use us however they like as usual. Supine workforce, innefectual unions colluding with employers, ruling class government looking after their own. We truly are fucked.
ReplyDeleteWhat you must all ABSOLUTELY bear in mind is that it is Probation staff who have been fucked over, nobody else in the public sector least of all the prison officers.
DeleteThroughout the 2010s pay freeze, every part of the public sector INCLUDING prison officers continued to get approx 3% per year in incremental rises. EXCEPT probation.
Then when the limit was raised to 1%, every part of the public sector INCLUDING prison officers got approx 3% increments PLUS 1% cost of living. EXCEPT probation who just got the 1%.
Earlier this year, all of the public sector got average pay rises of 4%, INCLUDING prison officers who got 6% which was increments combined with cost of living. EXCEPT probation that has had no cost of living at all.
So no point blaming the government unless you think somehow they're deliberately picking out probation officers to penalise which is doubtful. You can't blame MOJ as money has been available for prison officers.
Instead 100% of the blame is with NAPO. Every other public sector union has successfully negotiated pay rises over the past 10 years. All EXCEPT NAPO who have done SFA.
Napo is weak in branch rank and file. There was a point when it had intelligent leaders. The perfect storm is where Napo members have lost the desire to hold the general secretary who took a 10k pay rise and the crony club Napo have descended there is no accounting. Dysfunctional and disingenuous reporting by the general secretary making outlandish claims of success when there was none. We can compile a list but his ambitions are for reward from the government as he sells out our vital public services. Keeps on helping the moj reduce pay give away our terms no risk of court action no disputed cases. Napo members are on their own and may not realise their membership is actually harmful to their wealth.
DeleteCome. come, girls & boys. You know the score by now. Dishi Rishi has laid it out in clear terms for those who still don't get it:
Delete[in the] "interest of fairness we must exercise restraint in future public sector pay awards, ensuring that across this year and the spending review period, public sector pay levels retain parity with the private sector".
"What about the maintenance of the social fabric of the fucking realm?" I hear you cry. Well, the truth is [cut to Vic Reeves/Bob Mortimer] - "it dun't really matter."
It doesn't matter because, for the most part, it doesn't involve the self-defined 'elite', the 1%, or the lickspittles who enable this divisive pack of soul-less shits to do as they please - fill their pockets, fill their chums' pockets, give £billions of taxpayer money away to anyone *they* recommend or know, etc etc etc.
The Clown Prince, Wancock, *unt, Patel, Jenrick, Gove - and anyone else you can think of... not one of them gives a flying fig for your bleating.
And through a combination of self-interest, apathy & ignorance there's no-one left to fight your corner, no-one you can trust is watching your back so... what you gonna do? Who you gonna call?
Sorry and all that, but regardless of the sterling work, you're so far down the priority list it will be 2050 before you get an extra bean, if you're lucky!
But, as has already been pointed out, the senior management teams will need to be incentivised to keep a lid on your shenanigans, to keep you in line, to ensure the command-&-control structure is not compromised by Lefty Pinko Commies who think they are serving their community - "there's no such thing as community." (a modern twist on 'society').
I understand people's need for a payrise. I understand people deserve a payrise.
DeleteWhat I understand less is how people somehow believe this Government was ever going to do the right thing a give that payrise.
This Government is never going to do what's fair and right unless you're part of the gang.
In the last hour Sir Alex Allan, Governments senior advisor on ethics has resigned over Johnsons decision not to sack Priti Patel. Political ethics has now been grabbed by the Tory party.
MPs have had their £3.3k payrise this year, and Johnson is struggling on his £150k salary despite not having to pay rent or utility bills.
The public coffers are being emptied by the bucket load into the offshore accounts of the private sector at a rate so fast no one can even keep track of.
We have a Government that are resentful of feeding hungry kids that are not in school and not getting their free turkey twizzlers and curly chips.
We have a Government that not only feel elite, they're openly scornful of those that don't belong to the club.
Expectations that this Government will do the right thing will always lead to disappointment and frustration (and often poverty), and there's worse to come!
But they'll do alright because we exist only to serve them, and in their elitist minds, that's reward enough.
'Getafix
Evidence after evidence after evidence that this is what the UK government is interested in - looking after 'their own'; nothing less. Regardless of the weasel words the untrustworthy shit spouts publicly, there's no doubt that Trump's behaviour across the water is serving to embolden the Clown Prince.
ReplyDelete"Boris Johnson's adviser on ministerial code resigns after the PM backs Home Secretary Priti Patel after bullying inquiry.
The government's standards adviser Sir Alex Allan found Ms Patel's approach "amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying".
Ms Patel released a statement saying she was sorry "that my behaviour in the past has upset people".
The government said the PM had "full confidence" in his home secretary.
A statement said Mr Johnson was "reassured that the home secretary is sorry for inadvertently upsetting those with whom she was working". "
What is the real nature of pritis close relationship with the fat clown.
Delete"Coronavirus: Inside test-and-trace - how the 'world beater' went wrong
ReplyDeleteBy Nick Triggle, Rachel Schraer and Phil Kemp"
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55008133
"Just half of close contacts given to England's NHS Test and Trace are being reached in some areas, a BBC investigation has found.
Six months after Boris Johnson promised a "world beating" system, it can be shown the network is failing in areas with some of the worst infection rates.
The research also found no-one from NHS labs was at a key government meeting with private firms about testing."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strengthening-probation-building-confidence-monthly-bulletin/probation-changes-bulletin-issue-8-november-2020
ReplyDelete1. Introduction from Amy Rees, Director General of Probation and Wales
Welcome to the latest bulletin, reporting on key updates and progress across our three probation programmes – reform, workforce and recovery. You will read more on these from Jim Barton and Ian Barrow below.
As we continue to operate under restrictions, I wanted to thank all our staff for their continued professionalism and dedication, a view echoed by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Probation who recently applauded staff for their compassionate professionalism during COVID. It makes me personally very proud to lead such a team, particularly during these times.
Across the probation service, our focus is on ensuring the health and safety of our staff and service users. We will follow the principles of our COVID Roadmap to Recovery, prioritising public protection and risk management. We will continue to work under our established Exceptional Delivery Model Framework with our senior leaders making decisions on how best to deliver our core services in their regions based on local circumstances. We will continue to deliver Accredited Programmes and Unpaid Work wherever possible. Our Approved Premises will also remain open, with local amendments to how they operate where necessary.
Planning for the winter months and the possible scenarios we may face continues to be a major focus for us and we are doing this in collaboration with our key partners. We have learnt a great deal from the way we have responded to coronavirus and will be building this in to our plans wherever possible.
I hope you find this bulletin helpful and we look forward to updating you on the latest developments in the next issue.
2. Update from Jim Barton, SRO, Probation Reform Programme
Work continues at pace on the planned probation reforms as announced in June by the Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland QC MP and we are on track for the safe and stable transition to the Unified Model by June 2021. Recent highlights include:
Management Structures: the future structure of Probation Delivery Units is designed, as is how we will manage the Dynamic Framework, and the specialist public protection team that will sit in each region. We have a proposal for how Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes will be managed, but this remains subject to confirmation.
Role Allocations and National Agreement: CRCs have been working through the assignment of their staff - this determines whether and where staff are assigned to transfer, to the National Probation Service (NPS) or to one of our intervention providers. We have also reached agreement with our recognised Trade Unions on the key protections that will be afforded staff transferring from CRCs in June next year.
yada-yada-yada-yada...
Reached agreements with unions Napo sold us out again I bet. What a croc. Publish them what agreements.
DeleteSo the research concluded "OASYS is a pile of shite". Something we all knew.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the organisation has invested so heavily in "how to do OASYS", rather than "how to assess risk". Certainly in my area over the past few years, the focus has been on OASYS QA Standards, training about how to use them, QA feedback, with the feedback on literally "how" to fill out each box to "fit" these ridiculous standards.
OASYS is frankly not based on research - it doesn't take a professional to identify that a violent offence took place because of "thinking and behaviour" and "attitudes". This leads to ridiculous comments like "he needs to improve his thinking skills", "he needs to improve his consequential thinking", "he needs to improve his victim empathy", "he needs to change his attitudes to others and society". OASYS guides you little to identify the factors that prevent people perpetrating offences - why can the starting point not be what already exists in Mr X's life to prevent another offence and how we can now build upon that as the basis of the work we do. OASYS and certainly not Probation actually tells us HOW to address the psychological risk factors referred to - they've reduced us to "referral agents" - refer to TSP for thinking, drugs agency for drugs, and CRC for ETE/finances - and my "intervention" will be to "discuss" this with him and "motivate" him to attend. That's NOT how I see my role and I do try to do more, but that's how belittled I feel by "senior management" who have equipped me with few skills (other than what I have read up, learned, trained in prior to probation)- ultimately I can totally see why the service users say "what's the point in me attending probation - what exactly do you DO"?
The organisation has reaped what is sowed and yet STILL persists to sow the OASYS seed, piling on the pressure to do more of them, adding in new sections about pillars and arms and failing to provide what we actually need. The organisation rolls out a new "statistical score" and assumes people are just going to naturally know what these things are, how to use them - they treat us like total machines which is deameaning.....and then blame US for "only seeing RSR as a risk allocation tool" when that was entirely how THEY rolled it out to US....and then scratch their heads and say "we just can't understand why the staff aren't using RSR in their assessments" or "we just can't understand why staff feel we don't listen" - because we are SICK to our BACK TEETH of writing meaningless shite into OASYS, against your meaningless QA standards and when we raise this in team meetings, HOS briefings or whatever we are shouted down and told "the tool is based on research" - what research? Research completed in 2003 by some cronies at the MOJ???? Cronies that think the phrase "When is the risk likely to be greatest" actually makes grammatical sense and needs a four paragraph reinterpretation in the QA standards?
What people need is proper training and grounding, on a regular basis, on the psychological (and other) risk factors referred to in this report. What we get is yet another iteration of OASYS or OASYS QA which consumes our time, energy and focus. What we need is the reflective approach mentioned here, allowing us to formulate this neatly into perhaps one or two paragraphs, not an OASYS. But no, what we get is page, after page, after page of tick boxes, pull throughs, drop-downs, "evidence boxes" (I think there must be about 10), and ridiculous standards that talk about "list your sources in date order, with name and author" in order to get "EXCELLENT", or meticulous guidance about what a bloody "current situation" is!
Thank you well put together and honest account of a po role that has been subsumed by oasys and merged all roles.
DeleteHere here. Well said. It surprises me in these training sessions that colleagues are subservient and go along with the bullshit. If we don't all keep saying it the ones who do are more easily shouted down. We are treated like machines robots this is not what I came to do and before someone says get another job I've wasted years in this one why don't they change the job to what it should be working with people not computers! I am not here to fill in meaningless crap so it's easier for moj to create stats.
Delete