Tuesday 17 November 2020

Probation During Covid

Probation doesn't feature that often on tv, but here's a piece from BBC Wales on the constraints faced by specialist officers supervising sex offenders in Cardiff:-  

Covid-19: 'My pandemic work with dangerous prison leavers'

Working from home during a pandemic has brought extra challenges for probation officers who work with serious offenders after their release from prison. Many have had to handle unpleasant subject matter in their own homes, as they deal remotely with violent or sexual offenders.

I spent the day with a member of the probation team that works with the 50 most dangerous male offenders in Cardiff, to see how they are managing. Salli Dixon is part of the special team of probation officers usually based at a police station. While some face-to-face appointments have continued, whether in the office or the offender's doorstep, others have to be done over the phone or by video call. The pandemic also means more of the work is done remotely from home, including work with sex offenders.

"It makes it a little more hard to switch off mentally, and you're having really difficult conversations in your home environment, which feels intrusive," she says. "But it hasn't made the service any less effective. We can't have a less effective service - we protect the public, so we've just had to adapt."

Her first call of the day is with a registered child sex offender, who is living in a halfway house after recently being released from prison. He's tested positive for Covid-19 and has been moved into isolation quarters, meaning their appointment must now be over the phone. He tells her he's anxious about plans to find him his own flat where he would be living alone full-time. The length of time prison leavers spend in approved premises like a halfway house has been reduced during the pandemic.

"It's a little early if I'm honest - far, far too early," he says. "When my mind is in a corner and up against a wall - it just goes 'right where is the way out? The way out is to go back to prison'."

His anxieties are kicking in, meaning his risks increase, Salli explains. "He has got 16 or 17 instances of breaching his restrictions, usually by going too close to an area where there are children - like a nursery or school. He says he does that because he wants to self-sabotage and go back into prison," she says. "So when he feels that he is being moved into his own accommodation, where he'll be by himself, he gets anxious and he thinks it's easier to just do something that would warrant him going back inside. "The risk to the public would be that he would commit a child contact sex offence. He hasn't done that yet, but we can't rule out that he wouldn't."

How does she feel discussing the nature of his offending? "We're not completely desensitised as probation officers, because we still hear things that shock us," she says. "No matter how long you've done a job it is quite difficult sometimes and quite unusual to hear somebody talk candidly about their sexual views towards children."

The small team deals with complex cases - like repeat domestic violence or sex offenders who also have additional issues, such as a personality disorder, mental health problems or drug and alcohol misuse. Known as Wisdom (Wales Integrated Serious and Dangerous Offender Management), they have a reduced case load to reflect the risks posed, as well as more resources than typical probation officers.

Her second case of the day is able to come to the office. He committed a sex offence against a vulnerable adult and was released earlier this year after decades in prison. Much has changed since he was a young man on the outside, and he says the pace of life compared with prison has felt overwhelming at times. Weeks after his release, lockdown was announced and he too wonders whether it would be better to be back in prison.

"We've done a lot of work around what's going well and the reasons he wants to stay out," says Salli. "If you reinforce that enough, they will make changes and they will stay out. He's done phenomenally well."

She still carries out some home visits, but they're now on the doorstep, which naturally makes the job more challenging. "We're risk assessors, it's what we're trained to do. So even though we might not be able to physically go inside, we'll do everything we can to make sure that everyone is safe."

The use of video calls also means more checks can be done in a day, but if Salli is working from home she has to make sure none of her personal items are on view. "I would try and have video calls in the office because not only is it safer but I'm in the right frame of mind to be talking to somebody [in that] environment."

Covid-19 has also brought greater practical challenges for the men she works with. "It's made it more difficult for people to access basic things like housing, money and universal credit, signing up at the doctors, getting a prescription. We've had to be more hands on in terms of helping people get set up."

The rewards keep her going, she said, and she is proud of the good the team is doing for the wider community. "We change people's lives," she says. "I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it. It's got its ups and downs and you know you can't help change everyone. You have to manage your expectations about what you can help people achieve."

--oo00oo--

As an aside, I notice there are concerns in some quarters regarding the possible consequences of remote working. This seen on Facebook:-

Is the balance between the necessities of emergency delivery and the consideration, protection, and maintenance of professional discretion being achieved?

The anecdotal experience of many of those working remotely in probation during COVID-19 has, in a number of cases, indicated a disproportionate increase in scrutiny and micro management of work relative to the measures that are required. This has been described as oppressive. 

As the period of crisis continues questions are now starting to be asked regarding whether staff who could, for instance, relatively easily work from home or those who are vulnerable are being ‘encouraged’ back into workplaces some of whom may not be safe. It may also be the case that lower paid workers in probation are being expected to take more risks regarding potential exposure to COVID-19 than those in senior management or who are providing corporate services on the basis that their work is more amenable to remote working. It has been suggested by some practitioners that increased scrutiny or viral risk should attract increased financial compensation, however, the immediate concern is that this might penalise vulnerable persons who need to be protected or actually encourage unnecessary risk taking or even reckless behaviour. Is enough actually being done to facilitate remote working for all who wish to or could do so? Is enough being done to ensure safe working for those who wish or need to work non-remotely? Is probation putting service users at increased risk compared to the general population?

Whilst greater integration of management information systems to provide better quality information to inform decision making around more efficient use of available resources is to be broadly welcomed, particularly in relation to improved workload management and the management of physical, intellectual, and emotional labour, arguably this intensification has to be balanced with a greater degree of trust and increased acknowledgement of and respect for professional discretion and autonomy - that appears to have been sacrificed in favour of command and control. Probation staff are not simply cogs in the criminal justice machine and there is a strong case for a conscious organisational shift towards supporting those at the frontline rather than subjecting them to a constant stream of directives accompanied by intensified surveillance and control. 

There is a strong argument for those representing staff, such as trade unions, to question those making decisions regarding the provision of services in difficult times and ensure that the current crisis is not used as a smokescreen for more intense workplace control and less individual professional discretion.

9 comments:

  1. The first part of today's blogpiece is the most positive report of probation work I've read in a long time. 'Chapeau!' to BBC Wales for a good piece of journalism & to Salli Dixon for a balanced account of her work without unnecessary hyperbole or self-congratulatory bollox.

    The latter section rings massive alarm bells about (a) HMPPS not seeing the bigger picture regarding the stresses of probation work during the pandemic situation & (b) the unions seeming to be equally silent.

    HMPPS didn't seem to have any qualms about giving their 'excellent leaders' a big bung to stay at home; why didn't they extend that to the whole workforce as a matter of principle? It would have removed the issues of staff taking unneccesary risks to grab a bonus, it would have levelled the playing field for all staff regardless of their vulnerability, it would have recognised the value of all staff.

    What happened to the videolink systems in courts? With the limitations on or absence of court hearings have those systems been utilised by probation staff to contact cases? A damn sight better than from your own bedroom/kitchen table/insert domestic location.

    Have NPS or CRCs designated a system whereby colleagues work with & support colleagues? Many moons back we had a 'buddy system', but where the buddy was from a different geographical area and a different team (when teams were discrete disciplines, e.g. courts, programmes, community supervision, etc) - this allowed for informal 'decompression' & reflection outwith formal supervision.

    From reading the blogpiece I suspect the current climate is wholly focused on micro-management designed around the needs of risk-averse jobsworths who are receiving healthy bungs to remain in the comfort of their front parlours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/business/tax-people-who-work-from-home-5-to-support-atrisk-jobs-says-investment-bank-b1721310.html%3famp

      Delete
    2. The 1% who are obscenely wealthy beyond comprehension pay little or no tax comparative to those DeutscheBank want to target.

      Oh, and they also do this:

      "Frequent-flying “‘super emitters” who represent just 1% of the world’s population caused half of aviation’s carbon emissions in 2018, according to a study.

      Airlines produced a billion tonnes of CO2 and benefited from a $100bn (£75bn) subsidy by not paying for the climate damage they caused, the researchers estimated."

      Delete
  2. So, now the UK has outstripped so many nations in the covid-19 race to the bottom, its going to get another weight penalty to try to even up the competition, i.e. they're changing the counting rules yet again to ensure like-for-like is impossible:

    "PHE has updated the way it records the location of people who have been tested for COVID-19. Counts of cases and deaths at sub-national level have been updated to reflect this.

    See the about the data page for additional details."

    Presumably, while they apply all of the new changes, that's why they can't get the data out:

    "Due to technical difficulties, today's data will be released after 6pm."

    It is now 'sfter 6pm' but, hey, so is midnight, and so is next Wednesday.

    FranK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 8pm

      uk de-re-vo-lution-is-a-disaster-70,000-excess-deaths-aint-so-good-either govt covid-19 data 17 nov

      new case: 20,051

      deaths (28 day rule): 598

      week-to-date (sun-tues incl): 979

      on a ventilator yesterday: 1,391

      in hospital sunday: 15,830

      testing: 234,000 tested monday; capacity = 519,000

      The following is a tiresome read; its the govt definitions of their data, collection & methodolgy.

      https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/about-data#daily-and-cumulative-numbers-of-cases

      FranK.

      Delete
  3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54974373

    While the taxpayers weren't looking Part 37:

    "A Spanish businessman who acted as a go-between to secure protective garments for NHS staff in the coronavirus pandemic was paid $28m (£21m) in UK taxpayer cash.

    The consultant had been in line for a further $20m of UK public funds, documents filed in a US court reveal.

    The legal papers also reveal the American supplier of the PPE called the deals "lucrative".

    So far the UK's Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has published contracts with Mr Saiger's company, Saiger LLC, totalling more than £200m. These were awarded without being opened to competition.

    A legal dispute playing out in the courts in Miami has helped shine a light on the amount of money some companies have made supplying the NHS with equipment to protect staff from Covid infection."


    Remember Selous and his assurances about the stolen EVR monies?

    "Contract Management Teams are embedded in each CRC, closely monitoring how all monies are used and robust processes are in place to ensure all expenditure is correctly spent."

    Well, it seems the DHSC have a similar view of the PPE scandal:

    "The Department of Health said proper checks are done for all contracts."

    There is clearly some fairly basic comprehension testing that needs to be done with government employees.

    Please give the meanings of the following:

    * proper
    * checks
    * monitoring
    * robust
    * correctly
    * ensure
    * contracts (please note: this is different to the generally held use of the word, i.e. 'help your fooking self')


    Earlier this year, the BBC revealed that 50 million face masks the government bought could not be used in the NHS because of safety concerns. And last week, it exposed concerns that the government had leaned on safety officials to certify PPE which had been wrongly classified.


    I'm looking forward to hearing what comes out of the public spending watchdog revierw tomorrow.

    More from Phil on Twitter @phill_kemp

    ReplyDelete
  4. There has been some discussion on here recently about both modern liberalism and freedom of speech. Both issues seem to have collided in the following:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8958283/Columnist-Suzanne-Moore-quits-Guardian.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is one of the side games Trump has been playing with his "I won" horseshit - do not under-estimate what strategies he's employing. You'll all know from those on your caseloads that there are extraordinarily devious, calculating individuals who will exploit every opportunity for their personal benefit rather than for good. They'd rather go to gaol than admit their crimes.

    Trump isn't too bothered about being called names, but Georgia has been the side-bet all along:

    "Just about everybody is sick of the 2020 elections by now. Yet they won’t end until early 2021, when runoff elections for both Senate seats in Georgia will determine how much incoming President Joe Biden is able to accomplish during the next four years.

    None of the candidates in those two elections earned 50% of the vote the first time around. Under Georgia law, the top two finishers in each race will compete in a runoff on Jan. 5. Both of the incumbents running for reelection are Republicans, and the outcome will determine which party controls the Senate for the next two years. Republicans currently have a two-seat advantage, which means they only need to win one of the two Georgia races to retain control of the Senate. If Democrats win both seats, the Senate will be split 50-50, with incoming Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote for de facto Democratic control.

    In one runoff, Republican incumbent Kelly Loeffler faces Democrat Raphael Warnock, for a seat that opened in 2019 when the sitting senator retired for health reasons. Georgia’s governor, a Republican, appointed Loeffler to the seat, with a special election this year to determine who serves the remainder of the six-year term, which ends in 2023. In the other race, Republican incumbent David Perdue, finishing off his first term, faces Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff.

    In the Loeffler race, Warnock got about 33% of the vote and Loeffler 26%. But the third candidate, who can’t compete in the runoff, was a Republican who got 20% of the vote, suggesting a Republican edge in the runoff.

    Perdue nearly won his race, with 49.7% of the vote. But he didn’t reach 50%, forcing the runoff. Ossoff was a close second, with 48%."

    Rick Newman November 17, 2020, 9:26 AM EST

    Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
    Confidential tip line: rickjnewman@yahoo.com.

    ReplyDelete
  6. NAO report is here:

    https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Investigation-into-government-procurement-during-the-COVID-19-pandemic.pdf

    Other relevant links below:

    https://www.nao.org.uk/report/government-procurement-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/national-audit-office-investigating-uk-government-covid-contracts-after-cronyism-accusations/

    https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/coronavirus-contracts-tories-nao_uk_5fb4c86cc5b69969a6a06a13

    ReplyDelete