I’m genuinely curious. As the overwhelming consensus is that OASYS is not fit for purpose, what would we (the practitioner) want the risk assessment framework to consist of? I guess I’m struggling to imagine an assessment methodology which would continue to facilitate holistic assessment of need, risk of harm, sentence plan objectives and controls that would be much different from OASYS. We certainly do not need a rebranded gurgitation of the same thing. Are there tools used in other sectors or by Probation services abroad which would represent an improvement?
*****
I'm interested to know would people on here who support getting rid of OASYS and the command and control management structure and giving POs full autonomy and control over how they assess and supervise cases, expect greater scrutiny and accountability of POs for SFOs? I mean that as a genuine question, not a rhetorical question. ie would the trade off be to say that POs (with the right training and support) would get total freedom on how they go about their work but that when something goes wrong then the buck would truly stop with them?
I'm interested to know would people on here who support getting rid of OASYS and the command and control management structure and giving POs full autonomy and control over how they assess and supervise cases, expect greater scrutiny and accountability of POs for SFOs? I mean that as a genuine question, not a rhetorical question. ie would the trade off be to say that POs (with the right training and support) would get total freedom on how they go about their work but that when something goes wrong then the buck would truly stop with them?
******
I think most people were saying "get rid of OASYS" not get rid of any form of assessment. Think of OASYS in its most basic form: There are 13 areas of that person's life, some of which contribute to "offending", some of which contribute to their "risk of harm". If I gave you an A4 sheet of paper, asking you to identify which of those areas contribute to that person's risk and why and upon what basis, citing a range of evidence sources and drawing these together to say why you have come to your own view upon these, I hazard a guess your assessment would be a) shorter b) more effective and c) would take far less time.
I think most people were saying "get rid of OASYS" not get rid of any form of assessment. Think of OASYS in its most basic form: There are 13 areas of that person's life, some of which contribute to "offending", some of which contribute to their "risk of harm". If I gave you an A4 sheet of paper, asking you to identify which of those areas contribute to that person's risk and why and upon what basis, citing a range of evidence sources and drawing these together to say why you have come to your own view upon these, I hazard a guess your assessment would be a) shorter b) more effective and c) would take far less time.
It's not that OASYS doesn't do this - it just does it in the most time-consuming way and asks the most weird questions along the way, and fails to ask such fundamental questions such as "what exists in this person's life to prevent another offence" or "what strengths does this person have and what might need to happen now to build upon or develop these, as a pathway out of offending." And of course probation couldn't manage without a section about why do you think this person poses "X" level of risk at this time and how can that risk be reduced, forming of course the basis of a sentence that actually makes sense to the person who is ultimately completing these objectives.
To me it's just that OASYS itself asks the wrong questions, and it's focus on risk factors means the plan becomes so tightly focussed on those factors = so if the problem is drugs, the goal becomes "I will do something about drugs", if the risk factor is thinking, the goal becomes "i will address my thinking" or a variation of a theme, rather than "what is within my power right now to move me away from drugs or" or the behaviour of target.
To me it's just that OASYS itself asks the wrong questions, and it's focus on risk factors means the plan becomes so tightly focussed on those factors = so if the problem is drugs, the goal becomes "I will do something about drugs", if the risk factor is thinking, the goal becomes "i will address my thinking" or a variation of a theme, rather than "what is within my power right now to move me away from drugs or" or the behaviour of target.
Let's face it, the million drop downs in the sentence plan are so ridiculously awful and frustrating, everybody loses the will to live by that point and after spending 4 hours (well 8 according to some) writing out the previous sections, who actually puts care and thought into the bit that the service user should be most invested in i..e. the sentence plan?
******
"Ever thought how we might have managed before it came along?" There were several (at least three) risk assessment tools across England & Wales utilised by various Probation Areas, all of which were different & designed by different people of varying expertise, experience & ability.
Previous posts/replies on the blog have detailed how many, what, when, where - and that the initial idea of OASys was welcomed as a means of extracting the best from all to have a coherent single means of risk assessment. It was a Trojan Horse pushed through the gates by HM Prison Service psychologists, at the behest of the Home Office, to disrupt the fierce independence of the Probation Service. As far as I can remember none of the historical assessments were more than 3 sides A4.
Other 'modern' risk assessment tools (riding on the wave of the risk business) include those for sexual offending, for violent offending, for mental health assessments, for personality disorders, for child protection, for domestic violence, for placement of children. Some are undeniably helpful, but they are not generally utilised in a helpful way.
"imagine an assessment methodology which would continue to facilitate holistic assessment of need, risk of harm, sentence plan objectives and controls that would be much different from OASYS."
It used to be a core skill of the trained Probation Officer that they would spend time with someone over a couple of lengthy interviews and make an initial assessment that formed the basis of a narrative document called a Pre Sentence Report, which proposed a sentence to the Court. Assuming a period of supervision was imposed, from that initial assessment (the same or another) Probation Officer could develop the themes in the report during discussions over a period of time with the individual subject. Things might change post-sentence and clearer admissions might be made without the fear of imprisonment; this could take the supervision in a whole new direction.
Written records documented the process. No-one was chained to a keyboard for hours on end - the time was spent with those subject to supervision, actually interacting with and assessing the person you were working with. It was a professional role with skills, which required quality 'clinical' supervision, and required teamwork & support, required integrity and stamina and tact and many other positive traits.
"Ever thought how we might have managed before it came along?" There were several (at least three) risk assessment tools across England & Wales utilised by various Probation Areas, all of which were different & designed by different people of varying expertise, experience & ability.
Previous posts/replies on the blog have detailed how many, what, when, where - and that the initial idea of OASys was welcomed as a means of extracting the best from all to have a coherent single means of risk assessment. It was a Trojan Horse pushed through the gates by HM Prison Service psychologists, at the behest of the Home Office, to disrupt the fierce independence of the Probation Service. As far as I can remember none of the historical assessments were more than 3 sides A4.
Other 'modern' risk assessment tools (riding on the wave of the risk business) include those for sexual offending, for violent offending, for mental health assessments, for personality disorders, for child protection, for domestic violence, for placement of children. Some are undeniably helpful, but they are not generally utilised in a helpful way.
"imagine an assessment methodology which would continue to facilitate holistic assessment of need, risk of harm, sentence plan objectives and controls that would be much different from OASYS."
It used to be a core skill of the trained Probation Officer that they would spend time with someone over a couple of lengthy interviews and make an initial assessment that formed the basis of a narrative document called a Pre Sentence Report, which proposed a sentence to the Court. Assuming a period of supervision was imposed, from that initial assessment (the same or another) Probation Officer could develop the themes in the report during discussions over a period of time with the individual subject. Things might change post-sentence and clearer admissions might be made without the fear of imprisonment; this could take the supervision in a whole new direction.
Written records documented the process. No-one was chained to a keyboard for hours on end - the time was spent with those subject to supervision, actually interacting with and assessing the person you were working with. It was a professional role with skills, which required quality 'clinical' supervision, and required teamwork & support, required integrity and stamina and tact and many other positive traits.
--oo00oo--
This from HMPPS website 15 May 2019 - 'Risk assessment of offenders' - A summary of evidence relating to offender risk assessment, risk of reoffending and risk of serious harm.
Managing risk and building hope – what next for assessment?
Our priority is to reduce reoffending and protect the public. Until recently, we have focused on the risk presented by individuals but in future will need to understand more about areas of strength and factors that support people to desist from crime. Focusing on negative labelling and stigmatisation following conviction can hinder desistance. Desistance is how people with a previous pattern of offending abstain from crime. An effective risk assessment system can help us do both.
We will continue to evaluate and learn from evidence, and to develop more effective risk assessment tools, to help individuals to reduce their reoffending and to lead better lives.
All of the above comments demonstrate the 'do it not use it' mind set. I am a probation practitioner who uses it rather than does it - my professional context is irrelevant. One of the strengths of oasys is that it tells me 'this is how I saw this persons risk factors at this frozen point in time' I share (I hope I still share!) a professional context with the author of that risk assessment which helps me to understand what that officer meant at that time; this in turn helps me to understand and interpret what I see now against what my colleague saw then; I can then have a better understanding of what I see before me now. In turn my assessment of what I see now before me today helps my colleagues in the future (including my future self) see change over time. The way in which oasys can be transferred between agencies and HMP is key to why oasys continues to find favour. The key to making it work is the shared professional context which is delivered via consistent training and culture - as you know hugely under attack. So yes it is very clunky because it is now very old in IT terms but it's transferability and the shared professional context of those who complete it remain very valuable qualities.
ReplyDeleteI may be mistaken, @10:39, but what you describe sounds similar to the before-oasys-without-hours-of-tedious-IT observation above. I know which I would prefer...
Delete"Assuming a period of supervision was imposed, from that initial assessment the same - or another - Probation Officer could develop the themes in the report during discussions over a period of time with the individual subject. Things might change post-sentence & this could take the supervision in a whole new direction. Written records documented the process but no-one was chained to a keyboard for hours on end - the time was spent with those subject to supervision, actually interacting with and assessing the person you were working with."
Blahabs blah blah blaaaaaaaa as
DeletePSO doing the same work 10k less pay oasys here to stay we all do it PSO don't moan or pretend we know better we get the job done . For less pay pos are talking themselves up the usual swanny old crap. Get real. You do as your told not what you think.
Anon 13:23 Your contributions really do continue to make the case for role boundaries and the need for professional qualifications I'm pleased to say.
DeleteYes your right Jim and I genuinely wholeheartedly agree. Role boundaries need to be clear distinct and setb a standard for pieces or a series of duties that were once and should be restored as the preserve of a professional grade. For many years PSO have taken the wider duties courts breaches the days of a po having tondo court duty long gone. With that went psrs and the rest has been an unwinding if the po status. If pos really wanted it back they have to understand equal pay for equal work support eachother up the scale and then argue again for their differential and develop a professional re structure to define what that is.
DeleteIf you want to try and pinpoint what skills and qualities make the difference between a qualified PO and a PSO, have a think about what it is that's preventing you from accessing (or completing) the course. Something obviously is. If there's no difference between the roles except the salary then why don't you just complete the course and take the additional payment - rather than just barking at those who have and do? Is it the use of grammar... or something to do with temperament...maybe? Or is it just too painful to accept that it might be your own limitations that are standing in your way? Stop blaming everyone else for gawd's sake.
DeleteYou cannot define a difference today than pay. If you could you would. I am qualified and have relations in different roles in service.
DeleteReally? How is it then that you're unable to construct a sentence? What is it that you're trying to say? To my mind that is one of the key existential difficulties we face as a service, and part and parcel of the uphill struggle for status, recognition, and pay. Training has been dumbed down over many years, with excuses persistently found to 'pass' people who may have failed to attain previous academic standards. It's sad, but it's a significant elephant in the room as the Probation Service struggles to re-assert itself as a worthy and effective profession.
DeleteI am using a tablet sorry just amounts to a brief texting. Also lost the glasses. However you make the point service role for po has gone. No autonomy governed decisions managers
Deleteprovide overides. No psr no court work duty. I remember the day we had spare shirt tie on the door if called. Without a real role difference . The tactic should be to get the same pay from fear it will in my view force some negotiations on professional roles and new distinction. If we don't do this probation will eroded to nothing and sooner than you realise.
Also the minimum 2 a level and age went never helped your right but the cqsw was never a high brow qualification was it.
DeleteSorry, you've lost me again. It's unintelligible. If it's important enough to post, at least try and make it readable. That should still be vital to the job. Unfortunately, it no longer is.
DeleteAnon 19:40 I know I shouldn't rise to your provocations so just regard this as clarification. The CQSW was invariably undertaken alongside a first degree and indeed that is how I qualified to be a PO having gained a place at university as a mature student on a combined 4 year course. I can assure you it was a serious endeavour and stood me in great stead when I walked straight into the job on a 'sessional' basis with a full caseload and covering for an officer seconded to a prison.
DeleteCome of it JB it was never that great and you could hop to social work if probation got a bit too busy for one. Also you will recall the old home office trained staff as colleagues and my old CPO went through getting rid of these antiquities as soon as he could blink. The old language out of date ideas authoritarian values. The role has changed I don't care for the loss it's been and gone the hey day will never come back. I value the social justice and the principles of equal work deserves the same pay. There is nothing to distinguish what a po does differently today than an experienced PSO in a busy city team. Modern Pos spell it out or shut the f up.
Delete2021 another nail for.profesdionlism as a po needs not to provide readable work anymore. It is a real pity but this perhaps does not need a mothering grammar editor it's a blog not a a literacy exam grow up . Not knowing of a tie and spare shirt for court says A lot about you.
DeleteWTF?? What on earth are you (illiterately) rambling about now? I knew standards had dropped.. but not this low.
Delete13:23 it's the mindset like yours "do it, we are paid to simply do and not think" is precisely what keeps things exactly as they are. We DO DO IT - we sit there for 2/3 of our jobs filling this system out - that doesn't mean to say we can't reflect, comment or vent our views. What a ridiculous comment to make.
ReplyDeleteAs for 10:39, I agree with the previous responder that you have totally missed the point. There is HUGE value in assessment, ALL comments agreed with that; everything you say makes sense; but do you truly and honestly believe that OASYS is the right way to do it? We have TOTALLY become a "do it not use it" culture, and OASYS has sucked out the value of everything else that we can contribute due to the sheer amount of time we spend updating it. You talk about the value of transferring OASYS between prison and back again - how many prison based OASYS have you read over the years - I can tell you I have read hundreds and they are even more meaningless and counterproductive that the shit we produce in the community.
As I've said before, it doesn't take a genius to work out that (for example) a drug user perpetrated a robbery due to "drugs" and "thinking" and his "attitudes". It does, however, take someone with skills to unpick all this and to explore what these things mean to this specific individual and to actually do something to assist the person to start changing these things - I'm just not sure how OASYS contributes to this, and after spending 5 hours writing one what the organisation actually expects is "refer him to TSP, and refer him to the drugs agency" - whoopie doop, problems solved, that must be why our re-offending rates are so low and our prison population one of the smallest in the world. Let's get real - we have one of the WORST re-offending rates and WORST rate of imprisonment - so after 20 years of using OASYS the "world beating OASYS system" can the organisation not see that it is our system that is not working, and that WE actually have a lot to learn from the world beating systems of other countries?
Yes ok but still blah blah too many pos on here argue to
Deletereduce staff pay on the basis of a qualification. Yet no one can define what it does in the job. So argue pay for like work for all please then the employers have to act properly.
uk we've-given-up-even-bothering-to-pretend-we-give-a-shit-about-the-proles govt covids-19 data 28/11/20
ReplyDeletenew cases: just shy of 16,000
deaths (28 day rule of lore): 479
That's 3,406 deaths in the last 7 days to 28 Nov.
We're back at positive test levels equivalent to some 6/7 weeks ago.
"Hospitals in England told to prepare for Covid vaccine rollout in 10 days' time" - which, if it is the case, is great news, BUT... just because you've been vaccinated does NOT mean:
* you won't acquire coronavirus infection
* you can't infect other people
* you are immune
* those around you are safe from becoming infected
It simply increases your body's chances of resisting the infection & there's a high chance it stops YOU from becoming unwell.
YOU can still contract the virus.
YOU can still pass the infection on to others, much like those who are asymptomatic spreaders.
I truly hope I'm wrong, but sadly I see this Xmas as a super-spreader event - much like the USA is experiencing with their Thanksgiving.
The anti-vaxxers and the anti-lockdown protesters are not helping. They have opinions and they are entitled to those points of view, but the virus aint bovvered by their arguments for self-determination. It just wants human hosts where it can settle down & replicate; so the more they gather and push and shout and share bodily fluids, the more likely it is the virus has new hosts and the more pointless than ever they make the 'lockdown'. Or perhaps that is their plan?
FranK.
Thank you FranK always loknouy for this update and appreciate the message agree with you the Tory capitalist agenda doesn't mind a lot of casualties as long as they can't be blamed easily.
DeleteFrank, do you have any evidence to support your view that a vaccination won't make people immune or are you just expressing your opinion?
DeleteYour list of all the things a vaccine won't do makes you sound like an anti-vaxxer even though I know you're not.
What's your point? That even if the whole population was vaccinated that lockdown, face masks and social distancing should continue indefinitely? What sort of life would that be for us all?
I'm pleased those who came before us didn't possess such a defeatist attitude. Otherwise we'd never have had vaccines against smallpox, measles, polio and the rest.
"What sort of life would that be for us all?"
DeleteBut it wouldn't be for us all would it?
Not taking the actions needed to stop the infection spreading will kill plenty.
Are you really complaining that the sacrifice you're being asked to make, and the inconveniences that social distancing and wearing face masks brings, has such a crushing impact on your existance that it's worth the sacrificing other people's lives?
And where does indefinitely come from?
Indefinitely comes from Frank saying that having a vaccine does not make the person immune. Which would mean a vaccine would be ineffective.
DeleteAnd when I say what life would that be for us all, I'm actually thinking about those people aged 80+ who don't have years and years ahead of them and would want to spend what remaining time they have in the company of their children, grandchildren, friends, etc but who are being prevented from doing so by these endless lockdowns.
If someone is considered to be at high risk from the virus, are they within their rights to take a chance of catching it because, for example, you do not believe that a life kept in isolation is worth living? The answer to that is yes and neither the government nor the ivory tower egghead scientists have no business telling them otherwise.
Foolish bemoaning. Lock outs save lives prevent spread and if this country had some discipline and talent we could.have beaten it earlier. Tories left the airport's open carried on sports as they had investments in them . The virus in summer weakened by outdoors living yet all the fat people on the beaches like they have never seen the sea. Greed Britain. Keeps wanting furlougb monies . Holidays pubs travel.are all the enemy . If China neat it by strict management why can't we. Because you all want to granny and grandpa and end up killing them . Get off your high about lives worth living they are not worth cutting short. Or the risk do some assesment.
DeleteWhat about those under 80 year old that do have years left ahead? What about those dieing from other illnesses' that are unable to access treatments because hospitals are at breaking point treating those sick from the virus?
DeleteWhat about anyone else but you?
My point? My point is this:
DeleteA vaccination does not make you immune; but that does not mean a vaccination is therefore ineffective.
A vaccination gives your internal defence mechanism a heads-up and prepares it so that the virus can be defeated should it turn up in your system. You can still contract the virus and you can still pass it on in the short term.
**The vaccine doesn't kill the virus on contact**
And that is why the Xmas Hug-Fest is a ridiculous compromise of the nation's health, even if vaccinations started tomorrow.
In my view Xmas 2020 should be postponed until Xmas 2021 - with a double holiday season and double presents and double Jesus (or whatever your Xmas thing is). We should spend the next six months being cautious - not in lockdown, but being respectful of each others' space, being respectful of the virus and being respectful of personal hygiene behaviours.
So, if everyone is vaccinated AND takes precautions such as hand-washing, face-coverings, suitable distance, that's how the virus is ultimately defeated; it runs out of hosts and places to hide, which is why mass vaccination programmes take so long to have effect.
Hope that is a clearer take on my position.
FranK.
Perhaps this helps:
Delete"How does vaccination work?
The immune system is a network of cells, tissues and organs that work together to help fight off infection from harmful bacteria or viruses. When a disease-causing agent, such as virus or bacteria, invades your body, your immune system recognises it as harmful and will trigger a response to destroy it.
One of the ways your immune system fights off infection is by creating large proteins known as antibodies. These antibodies act as scouts, hunting down the infectious agent, and marking it for destruction by the immune system. Each antibody is specific to the bacteria or virus that it has detected and will trigger a specific immune response. These specific antibodies will remain in the immune system after the infection has gone. This means that if the same disease is encountered again, your immune system has a ‘memory’ of the disease and is ready to quickly destroy it before you get sick and any symptoms can develop.
Sometimes, however, the immune system doesn’t always win this initial battle against the harmful bacteria or virus and you can become very ill or – in extreme cases – die. Vaccination is the safest and most common way to gain immunity against a bacteria or virus that your body has yet to encounter. Vaccines contain a harmless form of the bacteria or virus that causes the disease you are being immunised against. The bacteria or virus will be killed, greatly weakened, or broken down into small parts before use in the vaccine so that they can trigger an immune response without making you sick. Your immune system will still attack the harmless form of bacteria or virus from the vaccine and will produce antibodies to fight it off. The immune system then keeps a memory of the disease, so if a vaccinated person encounters the disease years later, their immune system is ready to fight it off and prevent an infection from developing."
https://www.immunology.org/celebrate-vaccines/public-engagement/guide-childhood-vaccinations/how-vaccines-work#How%20do%20vaccines%20work?
FranK.
Or this:
Delete"The body's natural response
A pathogen is a bacterium, virus, parasite or fungus that can cause disease within the body. Each pathogen is made up of several subparts, usually unique to that specific pathogen and the disease it causes. The subpart of a pathogen that causes the formation of antibodies is called an antigen. The antibodies produced in response to the pathogen’s antigen are an important part of the immune system. You can consider antibodies as the soldiers in your body’s defense system. Each antibody, or soldier, in our system is trained to recognize one specific antigen. We have thousands of different antibodies in our bodies. When the human body is exposed to an antigen for the first time, it takes time for the immune system to respond and produce antibodies specific to that antigen.
In the meantime, the person is susceptible to becoming ill.
Once the antigen-specific antibodies are produced, they work with the rest of the immune system to destroy the pathogen and stop the disease. Antibodies to one pathogen generally don’t protect against another pathogen except when two pathogens are very similar to each other, like cousins. Once the body produces antibodies in its primary response to an antigen, it also creates antibody-producing memory cells, which remain alive even after the pathogen is defeated by the antibodies. If the body is exposed to the same pathogen more than once, the antibody response is much faster and more effective than the first time around because the memory cells are at the ready to pump out antibodies against that antigen.
This means that if the person is exposed to the dangerous pathogen in the future, their immune system will be able to respond immediately, protecting against disease.
How vaccines help
Vaccines contain weakened or inactive parts of a particular organism (antigen) that triggers an immune response within the body. Newer vaccines contain the blueprint for producing antigens rather than the antigen itself. Regardless of whether the vaccine is made up of the antigen itself or the blueprint so that the body will produce the antigen, this weakened version will not cause the disease in the person receiving the vaccine, but it will prompt their immune system to respond much as it would have on its first reaction to the actual pathogen.
Some vaccines require multiple doses, given weeks or months apart. This is sometimes needed to allow for the production of long-lived antibodies and development of memory cells. In this way, the body is trained to fight the specific disease-causing organism, building up memory of the pathogen so as to rapidly fight it if and when exposed in the future."
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/how-do-vaccines-work
FranK.
Or this:
Delete"If I have antibodies am I immune?
This is not guaranteed and that is why the World Health Organization is nervous about countries using immunity passports as a way out of lockdown."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52446965
So that's British Immunology, the WHO and the BBC all giving the same very clear message:
*** just because you might be protected by your antibodies, it doesn't mean you cannot still harbour the virus and pass it onto others ***
Oh, and if you're of an age or level of infirmity or any other condition which means you don't want to carry on living, then feel free to do what you want - but preferably without leaving others feeling guilty that they may have given you the virus or otherwise have contributed to your death.
DeleteI have spent way too many hours working with train, tube & HGV drivers trying to come to terms with some serious ptsd shit.
The last thing we need is the same syndrome over covid-19 post-Xmas 2020 because Granny or Grampa or Aunty or Daddy or whoever contracted the virus at Xmas & died a shitty death in February.
That, is my point.
Now I'm off to drink myself to sleep.
FranK.
"England's new Covid tier system has a "sunset" expiry date of 3 February, Boris Johnson has told his MPs in a bid to prevent a Commons rebellion."
DeleteIts not about the science, and its not about the health of the nation - its just about the Clown Prince pleasing his sponsors, holding on to power & consolidating his own & his chums' wealth. Always has been.
And that is why the govt's messages are vague, unclear, ambiguous, equivocal, etc.
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha:
ReplyDelete"A Donald Trump supporter who donated $2.5m to help expose and prosecute claims of fraud in the presidential election wants his money back after what he says are “disappointing results”."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/trump-donor-election-fraud-sues-money-back
In other Big Baby twitterings (it really is like some kind of shit cable channel you can't tear yourself away from):
Delete* "The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally, and that case will be brought after the recount is over, on Monday or Tuesday. We have found many illegal votes. Stay tuned!"
* "Specific allegations were made, and we have massive proof, in the Pennsylvania case. Some people just don’t want to see it. They want nothing to do with saving our Country. Sad!!!"
* "The number of ballots that our Campaign is challenging in the Pennsylvania case is FAR LARGER than the 81,000 vote margin. It’s not even close. Fraud and illegality ARE a big part of the case. Documents being completed. We will appeal!"
And the long game is Trump's thing, hence the rushed appointment of the extreme right-wing anti-abortion judge before the elections, so he can overturn all of the State decisions by taking everything to the Supreme Court where there's now a majority of Republican extremists. That was the reference made by Cuomo when the Supreme Court recently overturned the New York decision to restrict the numbers at religious celebrations.
I'd logged back in to see if there had been any update to previous comments, but all I got was incessant chatter about covid and trump which frankly there are so many forums,analyses, articles and discussion threads about them that we simply cannot escape even when we come here!
ReplyDeleteThe world is not a binary experience for most folks. Its not always packaged up in neat, discrete boxes. Sometimes there are overlaps, like the layers of an onion:
Delete- OASys is the world-beating answer to all your assessment needs
- covid vaccine means immediate & total immunity
- Trump won the US presidential election
- this Tory govt is unique in its inclusive approach to all
The beauty of JB's blog is that he understands this & doesn't shy away from the inevitable sting of tears in the eyes as those layers are peeled away.
Totally agree 01.37
Deleteok, @10:13, so perhaps you & @)1;37 can contribute to the discussions rather than whinge about other peoples' post. Then, if it hadn't occurred to you, its just possible that you can explore whatever subject you would prefer to discuss or simply chatter about.
DeleteI'm 01:37 and I have contributed to this post and others over the years...I guess I'm just sick of analyses about covid...there are so many forums and discussion threads elsewhere about that, you can't get away from it...so perhaps I come here to read people's views about probation, given it's the "probation blog"...but lately its become very difficult to actually see what people are actually saying about the discussion thread because there's so much covid noise to trawl through that I often give up!
DeleteAnon 19:57 and 01:37 - I have a degree of sympathy, however we've traditionally had a fairly liberal approach to what might be termed 'thread drift' in other places, but here I suspect many appreciate the flexibility and freedom to discuss whatever feels relevant and current.
DeleteThe sad fact is that much discursive and reflective discussion about broad probation topics has been in steady decline since the heady early days. I suspect there are many reasons for this and it's something I'm acutely aware of in thoughts about knocking it on the head. Just to be clear I'm not thinking of that any time soon because Covid-allowing I'm fairly sure TR2 is going to be another omnishambles and I will want my say on that, along with many others I suspect.
I'd suggest the decline is a combination of many factors, Jim, not least being the fear of consequences of posting by those employed by NPS & CRC, a turnover of staff leading to a sea-change in attitudes. There are certainly a fair few who think probation provision & the system of delivery is just fine as it is. Perhaps because it pays well (for some, not all); perhaps because it suits their politics; or validates their approach to the job.
DeleteWell put
DeleteOk lets throw into the mix what's getting a lot of probation staff vexed over on the 'secret' Facebook page since yesterday - that old chestnut of SSCL doing a shit job of things and 'overpayments'. It's generated quite a lot of traffic in 13 hours and quite a few horror stories, none of which bode well for a smooth transfer of staff from CRCs next year.
ReplyDeleteLike most things, we've been here before, 14th June 2019 to be exact https://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2019/06/latest-from-napo-189.html - so just be aware that the link to Napo advice is 18 months old, but you wouldn't know that because they hardly ever bother to put a date on anything.
Make no mistake folks, TR2 is another omnishambles in the making, something Katie Lomas had a decent stab at pointing out to the Justice Select Committee in her recent oral evidence session.
Shame she cannot do a decent job of managing the general secretary or Napo.
DeleteSSCL: https://www.sscl.com/
ReplyDelete"Big facts
Working with 23 of the largest Government departments.
We handle £378bn+ in payments each year.
Already generated around £310m+ in savings for UK govt.
Processing payrolls for over 540,000 public sector employees in Government, Defence and Police."
"Shared Services Connected Ltd (SSCL*) delivers class-leading business transformation programmes to government and public sector across the UK with a target to release one billion pounds of savings to the public purse.
As a trading name of Shared Services Connected Ltd, SSCL has established an enviable track record in the design and delivery of large-scale innovative HR, Payroll, IT, and Finance & Accounting solutions to significantly improve efficiencies and enhance service levels across government and public sector."
SSCL's HR director is John Nielson, also a director of several other public service-related organisations:
* NHS Shared Business Services
* Steria UK Corporate
* Sopra Steria Ltd
* Sopra Steria Services Ltd
* Sopra Steria Holdings Ltd
Other directors of SSCL equally busy elsewhere, not least with public sector IT providers Steria, are Peter Cashmore & Davinder Ahluwalia. All seem to have additional interests in consultancy, property acquisition/development and leasing real estate.
I admit I hadn't realised SSCL was a 'joint venture' - go here to read about their excellent performance - how they are meeting their growth targets and their £30M profitability - in their Dec 2019 accounts:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/08460577/filing-history
They are clearly magicians, alchemists, just amazing!! In a handful of years they have saved the UK government some £310M of savings & generated some £30M in profits for themselves. WOW!!!!
Or is it all just more sleight-of-hand bullshit...?
They are aggressive in HR practices and phase out staff be warned merger.
Deleteuk rats-eating-rats-as-the-ship-looks-like-it-might-be-taking-in-water govt sun 29 nov 2020
ReplyDeletenew cases: 12,155
deaths (per 28 day rules): 215 (weekend caveat applies)
FranK
Back to OASys and PSRs. The trick (it is so efffing obvious) is to spend time and genuine interest in getting to know the person. A checklist of topics is useful, but it isnt the product. Therapeutic skills. If we do no harm, in the course of an order/licence, that is a result. Any more is a bonus.
ReplyDeleteLord knows, the system is designed to inflict harm
Many who are happy within the system don't recognise they are causing harm, i.e. reinforcing anger, bitterness & hate through their eagerness to demonstrate control through risk management.
DeleteCompliance with management instructions, compliance with political will, compliance with a plan of supervision. Its all about doing as you're told & telling others what to do.
"Genuine interest in getting to know the person"? Why? They're there because they fucked up. We're there to implement the punishment of the court.
And that's what the politicians wanted all along. They didn't want awkward pinko lefties asking questions, being weird or interested or challenging; they just wanted footsoldiers to expedite the punishment. So they smashed Probation up, threw out all of the irritating, annoying old shards & kept the bits they could easily manipulate to fit their new design - rewarding them handsomely for their co-operation.
The result? The stunning near-flawless TR, with a new & improved TR2 due for release this coming summer of 2021.
Indeed Anon 02:03 and illustrated by staff expressing extraordinary crassness and illiterate insults like our friend at 23:48:-
Delete"Come of it JB it was never that great and you could hop to social work if probation got a bit too busy for one. Also you will recall the old home office trained staff as colleagues and my old CPO went through getting rid of these antiquities as soon as he could blink. The old language out of date ideas authoritarian values. The role has changed I don't care for the loss it's been and gone the hey day will never come back. I value the social justice and the principles of equal work deserves the same pay. There is nothing to distinguish what a po does differently today than an experienced PSO in a busy city team. Modern Pos spell it out or shut the f up."
As proven beyond all reasonable doubt by Christopher S Grayling, it only takes a single rotten apple to spoil the harvest.
DeleteAnd as no-one was prepared to remove that rotten apple - or even to acknowledge it was rotten - the canker has spread throughout the Probation Service. Even the barrel is beyond saving, such is the depth & toxicity of the rot.
I fear the plague is such that everything needs to be disinfected, incinerated & a fresh start made.
"as no-one was prepared to remove that rotten apple - or even to acknowledge it was rotten"
DeleteTo be clear, this is reference to those in positions of autority, power or influence that *could* have effected change at the time, but didn't. Plenty did complain & raise their voices, but they were ignored, shut down &/or ridiculed by those who spread the infection.
Not true the union's complied with change staff went along with it. Complacency set in the whole bunch not just a few. Having some people speaking up is what you all find upsetting. However imagine a po vlo not being a po but paid the salary. A vlo spo not doing case managers role but band 5 A PSO vlo in the same team across the country gets paid a lot less. These are inequalities yet po think it is fine when it is not. These are the internal failures that have created divisions. Not your loss of self importance. I recall a day when po grade spent a lot of time in the pubs at lunch often having a few with their cases. Thank goodness your in a control and sentence enforcement role. Call that old practice professional do you.
Delete"I recall a day when po grade spent a lot of time in the pubs at lunch often having a few with their cases. Thank goodness your in a control and sentence enforcement role. Call that old practice professional do you."
DeleteSometimes at lunchtime and sometimes after work but never with clients. Sometimes after evening meetings - always long discussions about cases and practice generally. It was an opportunity for support and de-stressing. Professional? I would say so but it was another time of course.
Sorry, @16:04, I am struggling to make sense of your comment above, e.g. "imagine a po vlo not being a po but paid the salary"... it sounds like a line from a Schrodinger joke.
DeleteIf you are the person who has been posting & expressing anger about PSOs being paid less than POs, perhaps the same person who is struggling to use their tablet, I'm not criticising your struggle with technology - but it is difficult to unravel what you mean.
If it helps (but it probably doesn't) my view is that today's PSOs are paying the price for the behaviour of PSOs in the mid-2000's when PSO grades badgered management for more responsibility - which they got - but without any increase in pay. It was not PO staff that wanted things that way; they saw the professional path crumbling, with role boundaries unravelling and allowing Trusts to keep pay to a minimum for operational staff, while more senior staff were upgraded into luxury.
I have also posted here about the VLO role & always believed the VLO is a tough & specialist role requiring skills that make it comparable to a PO role. I argued locally that it is NOT a PSO-grade role, which made me very unpopular. I have worked as a PO, with perpetrators of many various crimes, and I have worked with victims of crime. Working with victims was always far more complex - whether they were survivors of sexual abuse, domestic abuse, domestic burglary, relatives of those who had been killed and relatives of those who have killed. I have also worked with train, tube & HGV drivers suffering ptsd in the aftermath of suicides - again, very complex and distressing work.
In all cases, to do the work to any degree of quality & hope to achieve any meaningful work is demanding, complex and challenging. No-one should be paid a pittance to undertake such tasks.
If a total fuckwit of the calibre of Grayling can be paid £300/hour, its an insult of epic proportions that those who put themselves on the line to assist other humans make positive changes are paid as little as £12/hour.
Thanks you post is an excellent response but only in part. The trusts were in a difficult position. CPOs bought in staff and then there was the national Job evaluation material. There was a boom in programmes and be honest a different but none the less many staff engaged the work who were from a training or teaching background but not POs. PO was and remains a valuable costly resource. It should be deployed on the sort of advise assist and befriending social contract that so many of us realise worked and lament its passing.
DeleteI respect what you say but please do not over emphasise the claim that PSO were hungry to devour PO role or the unclear boundary. It is true and fair to suggest in part, there was always going to be some element to do just that BUT NOT in the main. The real drivers were the sub structures getting wider services delivered more cheaply. Devolved county budgets partnerships required spending and a way to extract value for money by diffusing roles amongst the staffing who were both naïve and over willing to deliver multi roles in many locations. These additional tasks led to higher rates of pay from the JE principles nothing to do with eclipsing te duties of a PO. Sadly breach work went a specialist PSO as did unpaid work unit managers PSOs now paid at band 5 . HR staff regraded to higher levels in the JDQ process and commitment to get rid of outdated and unfair pay restrictions when the roles had increased. It was always a professional gaff to lose Courts lose the SIR SER PSR . Fall into the foolish PO delivery of Oasys. This was rolled out on grade by colleagues POs who were IT clever and saw a way of encouraging POs into the new era. Not to mention the equalities strand younger female and IT friendly . Alla Perfect storm. Losing Courts and PSR was the end. NOT other staff. Nor should we ever argue to keep staff pay rates down as NAPO did to the VLOs. The only way back up is to regrade and evaluate duties not hide under a qualification which still we cannot demonstrate what we currently do that requires it or the extra 1000 per calendar month. Not while we watch on as PSOs deliver Oasys court work work stand down reports oral reports and everything else. Any further ingress why have a PO at all? Pay up pay fair to all these grades and being a PO will force the employers to renegotiate a genuine and protected professional set of standards that protect us into the future and a chance to negotiate some of what being a PO was about.
Your post is sensible and in relation to the VLOs imagine a team of them managed by an SPO band 5 PO who really does not have a clue on the job itself. A few PO colleagues in teams yet a relevant Degree holding experienced VLO in a PSO grade receiving a such dramatically reduced pay for the same work is morale busting. The issues strike at the way things are going in the future and we need to unite to prevent any further decline. I hope this is clearer and we find common ground. POs must get away from a protective belief in certification as the Government will cut in shortly as the Covid debts justify anything they will want to do.
JB too many ex colleagues spent time in pubs with offenders it was always a car crash waiting to happen and many of us were too young then to have done anything. I appreciate some of that time myself but as you say some of us never mixed the two.
I'm afraid our esteemed correspondent is at it again. Ramble, sputter, and steam with some made-up stuff to support the 'point'. A waste of all our time. Barely literate and irritatingly repetitive. I'm trying not to nanny you in your struggles with grammar and expression, but it's so difficult not to when faced with this utter balls.
DeleteArh back to insult and grammar nanny no wonder probation is totally fu**** with your inability. As long as you have a po qualification Omni potent Omni powerful and omniscient . Your blame of staff getting on while not appreciating how backwards the intransigent po position became is by your own hands. You opened the door to grayling and the senior management all senior led pos gave him the keys. Tr2 will really see you off as they need staffing not po grades. Wake up.
DeleteAnon@21:29
DeleteWhy not leave and then rejoin?
If you are as qualified as you believe you are then it's a certainty you will be snapped up and get the extra £10k you feel you deserve.
Yawn... put the glass down now.. it's making you all punchy again. Try and get some sleep, and you might find yourself a little more comprehensible in the morning. Then perhaps you can think about filling that Pqip application form in..?
DeleteNo point in pquip no point cpd no point po. When you don't like alternate accounts which are factual no response. Offenders laugh at probation these days and those in po role cannot provide any help. Just a menu of sign posting other useless services. Have you learnt nothing other roles in probation exist because it is multi function centric po elitism is what will see the role vanish and your snobbery .
DeleteHahah and there it is the kettle steaming. Your ignorance and stumbling around anger illustrates the lack of assessment. You have missed all the key pointers. Your single minded solidarity to qualification in absolutely nothing cluds your reasoning. You have to learn to appreciate probation has many highly skilled and differently qualified people within. Your abuse and ridicule is futile. illustrating the limitations of your grade, you only see yourself not the talents and superior contributions others make. What a shame. This is why the Police have High risk surveillance officers in probation because they don't trust probation alone. It is why the prison officers are now the custody rehabilitation officers it is why Pos riding on your superior bus have been eroded. Your replies are clear enough. You just cannot see the bigger picture. You should read a bit harder and look to wider material to get a broader understanding by then you will be too late.
DeleteI really don't know what to make of this continuing tirade of confusing barely literate abuse directed at POs but I've had enough of it and especially as the author seems intent on having the last word. It's contributed absolutely nothing to our further understanding and there seems little likelihood of a serious intelligible discussion developing so I've decided to terminate it folks. Comment moderation in place because I'm pretty sure they will want the last irritating word.
DeleteWARNING - Non-Probation post that doesn't even mention PSOs - do not read if you're not interested - Jim will no doubt hit delete if he thinks it doesn't belong here
ReplyDeleteOh dear, Dishi Rishi & his missus, Murky Murty, have been revealed to be involved in all sorts of dodgy financial wheeler-dealings:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/30/rishi-sunak-wife-akshata-murty-imm-mauritius-india-tax
& associating with some of the more immoral financiers, including Boris's chum Crispin 'Odious' Odey:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnsons-donor-crispin-odey-eyes-brexit-jackpot-with-300m-bet-against-british-firms-0lwjbnqsn
https://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/news/18907036.employers-can-justify-discrimination/
ReplyDeleteYou CAN have your cake, eat it, get fat & shit on others:
Delete"Where the sole aim of a policy is to reduce costs, an employer cannot discriminate simply to save costs. However, where there are other factors as well as financial constraints, an employer may be able to justify a policy which produces a discriminatory effect."
You are correct in my understandings and when the CRC staff come back and the leap frogging of NPS staff with less service on more pay becomes obvious they will still pay ex CRC staff less money. That will strengthen the divide.
DeleteCan't access the whole article, but this may be of interest to some?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.themj.co.uk/Civil-service-strike-threat/197324
'Getafix
'Getafix - Worry not! It's June 2014.
DeleteCAUTION - NOT PROBATION-THEMED COMMENT
ReplyDeleteuk don'-worry-bout-a-ting-cos-every-little-ting-gonna-be-alright govt covid-19 data 30/11/2020
new cases: 12,330 (weekend lag effect may apply)
deaths (28 day rules): 205 (as above)
Today's lesson comes from the gospel according to St Braveheart on this bright, sunny St Andrew's Day:
"Run, and you'll live...at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days, from this day to that, for one chance – just one chance – to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives but they'll never take our freedom!"
FranK.
Not Probation post.
DeleteIn Boris's world:
A scotch egg is a substantial meal. Chicken-in-a-basket or burger & chips is, however, a bar meal.
"A public inquiry into state collusion in the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane will not take place at this time, the government has said.
Mr Finucane was shot dead by loyalist paramilitaries from the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) in February 1989. His family had fought a long campaign, involving numerous legal actions, in a bid to have London fulfil a commitment given 20 years ago to hold an inquiry. Several examinations of the case found state forces colluded in his murder."
Their contempt for anything & everyone is writ large in everything they do & say.
And here's their (non-probation) unlimited we'll-do-anything support to fight the coronavirus:
Delete"More than half of people applying for financial support to self-isolate are being rejected in some coronavirus hotspots in England as councils report running out of cash and loopholes leave low-income families ineligible.
Thousands of people are being excluded from accessing the £500 one-off payments due to gaps in the policy announced by Boris Johnson two months ago, according to council leaders and charities.
People who are told to self-isolate by the NHS test and trace app are not eligible for the payments. Neither are the parents of children who have been told to self-isolate. Small business owners, sole traders and self-employed workers also appear to be excluded."
18.51, it's just another example of the terrible consequences of these endless lockdowns.
DeleteIt's heartbreaking to hear about the elderly people living by themselves, completely isolated from friends and family, even more so when you consider they'll be spending Christmas alone.
I can get my m*nge waxed by a complete stranger....but can't go to mums for tea!
ReplyDeleteWhat a time to be alive!
In the absence of any probation news at the moment I think a rest is appropriate and to avoid any more irritating contributions from a PSO on a mission, I've turned comment moderation on. Lets hope something interesting to talk about turns up soon and normal service can resume.
ReplyDelete