Best of the Week

There are many events which celebrate the vainglorious bullshit of overpaid fuckwits, but none more so than the merry-go-round of astonishing new criminal justice initiatives being announced to the world by The Minister For The Bleedin' Obvious: "This ground-breaking new model will help offenders get their lives back on the straight-and-narrow before it’s too late". It makes my piss boil. Why? Because for the last thirty years there have been too many 'new initiatives' to count. Too much public money has been wasted on vanity projects which usually only last months, maybe a year at best, before the funding dries up, nothing more happens except that... we return to the status quo but with ever-reducing resources.

IF, and it's a very rare 'if', an initiative is effective and/or successful, the ongoing running costs are taken from pre-existing budgets, staff are taken from pre-existing posts. Around the time the Trusts were created it was often said that NOMS had 'more pilots than British Airways'. It is not helpful or productive or progressive to persist with such stupidity. Getafix is dead right - "The wheel can be reinvented, even if reluctantly, and ever so slowly." But where does it get anyone?

The MoJ scrapped the well-respected, perfectly functional vehicle that was a nationwide probation service, paid well over-the-odds for it to be stripped & taken away, and threw what they couldn't sell into the skip - which they also paid over-the-odds for. Now the MoJ are buying the wheels back - probably from the dodgy dealers they originally paid to take them away. And they think they're getting a great deal because they think they're brand new wheels!! Think about it. New Choreography, NOMS, Trusts, TR... if the £billions of wasted public money & other resources had simply been poured into what was in existence pre-1999 we would now have the most progressive & successful probation service on the planet. And thus... piss is boiling.

*******
I worked in a "Young Adults" team not long after I started work as PO. That was in the early 1990s. Similar ethos, it was effective and abandoned when National Standards were introduced. The wheel turns... recently I heard someone talking about an approach to interventions that sounded remarkably similar to Systems Theory!

*******
Oldies like me get a bit exhausted as things go round the block again, but this is to be welcomed, I guess (sigh), My main concern is that Pilots are always run by the enthusiastic and ambitious and then get rolled out underfunded as the enthusiastic and ambitious are required to demonstrate it can be done on a shoestring, Been there, done that.

*******
The wheel is spinning so fast that a) hamsters on the wheel just keep running b) those hamsters who look out of the window just lose the will, and look for an exit.

*******
"Mental health and substance misuse experts will work alongside National Probation Service staff... accommodation, training and employment services will also operate from the hub"

It never ceases to amaze me how many different services a person needs to attend, which in my view would be more effective if probation officers were trained and given the professional discretion to deliver meaningful services ourselves, directly. I'm not saying people should only ever attend with one person; but the only "groundbreaking" thing about this project is the fact the services are all "under one roof" - the poor person still has to attend with five different services (in addition to the jobcentre and their GP, so 7) if they are an unemployed drug user with mental health and accommodation problems. I've said it before but it's worth repeating, this approach de-skills the value (and point) of attending with probation, and whether "under one roof" or not complicates the lives of people who are, by very definition of the inclusion criteria for the service "young, vulnerable and immature". I just don't get it.

******
The trauma stuff is good. I am a bit reserved about the Personality Disorder stuff: always resistant to theory/practice which is rooted in the idea the problem is not with the shit state of the economy and our society, and any new clothes the HMPPS Emperor gets of on. In my book, (evidenced based) work is simple: forge good relationships, manage the risk, advocate your socks off for the client. The less simple thing is the skills, experience and training that make that work. But none of the above much boosted by the shitshow of initiatives, projects, bureaucracy, contract-management, and other needless complexity that is strangling us.

******
* but the only "groundbreaking" thing about this project is the fact the services are all "under one roof"

Been there, done that - intensive probation for prolific & persistent offenders - remember them? We had police, probation, substance misuse, mental health, housing & DSS staff all in one building & immediately accessible to those who had been accepted into the fold - it was necessarily selective & targeted (as is the ground-breaking world-first Newham project) because time, money & space were limited if we were to ensure meaningful involvement with each case, as opposed to rushed or superficial engagement.

TR meant the experienced & skilled probation staff were made 'redundant', funding was pulled & the police morphed the project into community surveillance, i.e. the project doesn't actually exist anymore but the single police involved is called a 'case manager' who has a list of numbers to call if s/he feels its necessary. But as many prehistoric hamsters will attest, the 'one-stop-shop' approach is most certainly NOT new.

******
Agree - will it be any different with this ‘new’ service or new CFO Probation Activity Hubs, Probation Dynamic Framework contracts, ‘Local Leadership Innovation Fund’? Lots of duplicated spending pockets, instead of strategically funded/coordinated Services to meet needs. I started my career in 80s as a volunteer at a Probation Centre in Liverpool, then in 90s managed a Probation Centre in Bucks - all multi-agency partnerships, multi-activity and very successful. Significant relationships/trust are proven as the key to changing behaviour. Sadly too many staff required to dedicate their time to mechanistic systems rather than building skills to develop trusting relationships to effect change.

*******
A fascinating look at the changes that so many Probation Officers have also experienced. I sometimes wonder whether the daily grind of our "targets only" work prevents each of us realising the many changes for the worse that have occurred. Is this a parallel with the very, very gradually warmed up then boiled frog syndrome?

*******
Blimey! I did nothing wrong once. I had a job, then I didn't because of a contrived, constructed process whereby they said they couldn't afford to keep all the jobs going (even though they paid themselves much more than they used to get); then they stole most of my redundancy money & threatened me if I didn't take what was offered. No-one gave me £300,000 to keep my gob shut. Maybe its time to write a book? Maybe I'll ask Alison for some top tips... I've still got the emails & the letters.

******
Nobody else even slightly irritated by Diane Wills' somewhat self-aggrandising account of her career, reading more like a job application or LinkedIn profile? Even more confusing given the complete volte-face in the mere 9 months between August 2017 and May 2018. It's not entirely clear whether she was actually a Probation Officer when enthusing about the role in 2017. I'm certainly not going to say the work or the culture has improved - it definitely hasn't. But I sense a bias here that might be more about Diane's current 'business' interests than a careful comparison of Probation then and now. Has Diane been competing with the Probation Service for work, or perhaps her business hasn't been securing the anticipated contracts with HMPPS to deliver work alongside the Probation Service? Given that Diane seems to have returned to the job she hates in recent years, I can only assume the business wasn't working out. Just saying.

******
I did make similar observations myself - by "independent contractor" I assume she means she was a temp through an agency? That said, she does make some very relevant points and makes them well. Risk assessment and parole reports have indeed become "painting by numbers" and case formulation has become mechanistic, done only by "qualified PD psychologists". The damage OASYS has done and then the re-damage through QA tools has left us de-skilled and depressed, knowing that none of it makes a blind bit of difference but do it to their exacting standards due to fear of sacking and criticism in face of an SFO.

******
These ‘core values’ and ‘professional standards’ stop outside the door of our elite leaders. Some are particularly good at throwing people under busses. “Speaking after the hearing, Chief Probation Officer Sonia Flynn CBE said: “This was a truly horrific crime and the decision-making was well below what I expect of an experienced probation officer, for which I sincerely apologise to Janet Scott’s family.”

*******
The Civil Services' core values are supposed to be integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity. If Alison's book is true, including the content and timing of this 'Annex 16', how can the likes of Sonia Flynn and Neil Appleby be allowed to remain as civil servants, let alone in very senior positions? Its not exactly a surprise but it is unsettling. And you have to wonder how these people can look themselves in the mirror each morning.

******
I had no idea, until now, that the NPS had screwed up so badly that they had to pay Alison off before they were taken to tribunal. Its definitely not what we were led to believe in our division.

******
I can't wait to read it Ali! Is it available in paperback yet? There are so many Probation stories that have not been told yet including many recent episodes such as the way the CRC Working Links was run before it collapsed. Unfortunately all I hear from Senior Managers is a clamour for "Good news stories" and gushing prose about "exciting" new ways of work. I have no quarrel with optimism but I believe it can only be real when we look at and properly deal with the problems, betrayals and outrages that have been carried out by Senior Managers since Chris Grayling's Probation Rehabilitation Transformation.

*******
Working Links run by the most corrupt people ever. Supported by many staff who did as they were told regardless of legitimacy. Links stole cash funding pensions percentage contributions and paid their clique of friends incredible salaries from the budget while cutting front line staff. They couldn't pay bills for vehicle insurance road funds mot laundry water. They closed, valuable office space intimidated staff and lied to individuals. Steve Jones Working Links sub chief is incredibly low rent low skill and low conscience. Local Napo fought these people and effectively run an internal exposures campaign on TV Jim's media, and local council motions with labour. The corrupted Tory linkages were everywhere but nothing stopped the production of the worst HMIP report ever from any area. It directly led to major leadership exit post links demise.

Links held on with a genuinely incredible financial accounts being marked as a going concern. This means having funds to run for the next 18 months. Links buckled 12 weeks later indicating the flair for auditors bad accounts. Aurelias turned on links then ate their cash devouring everything. Links desperately scrambling their debts to the HSBC monthly deadline saw offender provisions suffer. No desk phones no transport cover no tools no replaced products no expenses paid. Flooded shoddy offices no health and safety. The complete failure of leadership was painful to witness and their immediate complicit conduct. Just following orders I don't think so. Links had not calculated what the local Napo branch did do and helped bring them down sooner than later. Some of the early engagements were like a scene from made in Dagenham with cooperative overtures was beyond a joke. Senior unions officers talking like apologists than taking substantive action but for the local branch chair who had a fantastic team.

The four years of the idiocy complacency and complicit conduct from those in charge coupled to sheer gross and growing incompetence unravelled it should never have run so long and the cowardice of those who should and could have acted properly brought matters to a head faster but chose not to. These failings so derelict from their primary function and duty. They could not have any pride for their part.

******
I will be reading it. I had 2 SFO investigations myself, both during the time that my CRC had an unofficial "no breach policy" prior to March 2017. I will never forget either the victims or the way I was treated by the SFO process. How did we get to this relentless blame culture that seems to desire one individual as a scapegoat for several systems that are dysfunctional (Senior Management, Government Criminal Justice policy, very poor recording, IT and risk assessment tools, weak Trade Unions and lack of working together across agencies to mention just a few)?

*******
Doing your job as best as you can in overwork situations bad admin poor IT late records failed attendances pressure not to breach, the absent workloads management agreement and no distinctions for proper case time allocation. Any good union would take employers to court threaten legal protection raise formal statutory grievances on multiple infringements and force employers to protect the public by protection of staff first as priority. Sadly we don't have that anymore and we have to look at why we have a such a pathetic unprofessional crock in Napo. Napo don't know much these days feckless low grade ego trippers who have squandered resources. Unison hide in the bigger staff avoiding probation officers plight as not the bulk of its members. SFO outcomes will likely remain the stick against PO staff. Fear rules.

******
OM, long in the tooth now, I have several SFO's on my CV. In every case, without exception, my organisation has shat on me. I hate them for the lack of care they extend to case holders. They have got this so wrong. They talk of lessons learned but they don't learn them.

******
In my last SFO investigation I was hugely assisted by the HMIP SFO thematic inspection report which poured criticism on the NPS SFO process as being unfit for any kind of purpose. For the first time, but not the last, I felt a smidgen of sadness that HMIP was more understanding and protective of my professional context than my employer. To anyone going through this 'blessed' process read the HMIP report and I think you will find it useful and supportive.

******
Looking forward to reading it. Went thru an obviously rigged disciplinary myself with union rep - who it later turned out had an otherwise undisclosed relationship with the senior manager making the accusations. Lucky for me the Hearing Chair wasn't stupid & allowed me to deliver my own summing up when union rep tried to tell the hearing I was admitting all allegations.

A "Guaranteed sacking" for gross misconduct ended up as minor infraction of data protection (inadvertent but yes, it was), a slap on the wrist & internal enquiry about the wasted time & money, and the lies told by others coerced into submitting false evidence to the kangaroo court.

I think TR saved the skins of all involved as the Trust ceased to exist shortly afterwards. Guess where I was shafted. And guess what the CRC did next. But I wouldn't have coped any longer. I was on the ragged edge as it was after way too many months suspended & I'm much happier no longer embroiled with such a dysfunctional coven of vile bullies. Learned how to be a barista; now I'm getting paid to write, paint, travel (not so much for the last year) & generally enjoy life.

******
I remember last year one of my cases allegedly committed an offence of rape. Having had sight of police evidence it was clear to me that he did not fit the profile of the offender. Despite this he appeared in court charged with one account of rape and one account of sexual assault against adult female. The serious further offence process was initiated at court and the case was put on hold and all documentation relevant to the case was printed off and Case file seized. I was given clear instructions not to have access to the case pending the SFO enquiry. I was made to feel like I had done something wrong. No account was taken of the high case load I was carrying at the time.

I was interviewed and asked questions about my management of the case. Basically the interview conducted by an ACO made me feel belittled and guilty that I did something wrong. I came out the meeting feeling overwhelmed and deskilled. In a bizarre twist of turn the police had in fact arrested the wrong person and no further evidence was offered by the CPS. Consequently, the offender was released without charge.

However, I did not receive any apology or explanation for being put through this terrible experience. I raised the issue with my manager and told that this is the way things are done. It just seemed to me that managers just want to quickly blame someone or point the finger at others at the first opportunity. We need to change the way we work. We need to treat staff with respect and not someone to point the finger at. It took me some several months to recover from this unfortunate experience. I hope for things change for the best in the future although I have my doubt.

******
Ali, credit to you for sharing what I believe is essential probation reading. Many of us have been shafted by probation on occasion, by SFO and complaint processes. These processes can be horrendous and there is no protection or support. Probation senior managers, Heads of Service, ACOs and Directors, are always willing to throw everyone beneath them under the bus. Senior Probation Officers sometimes wear the Teflon too, but only if they’re in the inner-circle and if senior managers are not comprised. The SFO process is a blame game and the aim is to find fault no matter what. Most probation colleagues are manipulated through the process and made to believe it is development, when it is not. Anything that puts a negative maker next to ones name is potentially career ending.

******
It's sort of weird that this has emerged as a theme now, as in totally awful that the MoJ/HMPPS, a secretive and defensive cabal, have been allowed to pursue an investigation process in-house, and quality checked by themselves. It all makes sense now: the crushing of individuals in order to protect the centre. The more polarised the gap between the ministry and Real Life, the worse this gets for practitioners trying to do a professional job connected to real life.

******
I recall the days when something bad happened the team meetings would see a flurry of professional support re checking evaluating the issues and all contributing to the officer concern care and recognition of their upset. Self questioning reflection and ways that may have been a factor to prevent SFO although not termed that then were all normal things without officer recrimination. 

Today so many colleagues are involved in one case it seems easier to find a single missed entry or late breach whatever there is to just blame the one. Accuse the staff and then absolve the wretched procedures as self righteous. We need to establish all our professional judgement skills again. Revisit ownership of a professional standards which need and must have safeguards. This means: 

1 workload limitation 

2 tiering of the work duty responsibilities which are prescribed in written role boundary.

3 Timings properly agreed for all pieces of work. 

4 case allocations process timely and gate kept for best skilled staff and workloads balance.

We must re establish our frontline and professional judgement as a competency and as part of the reason why probation officers decisions are respected and calculated than that of the flawed OASys being the tool we are judged upon.