We all know there's a crisis on pretty much every level within the Service, but everyone at the top seems to be in complete denial with fingers in ears and singing 'la la la la la la'. Things could get a whole lot worse as well with a new round of spending cuts on the way. Press release issued today:-
Recommendations
Inspectorate calls for urgent action as trio of London probation services rated ‘Inadequate’
Probation Services, also known as Probation Delivery Units (PDUs*), in three areas of London have each been rated ‘Inadequate’ following inspections by HM Inspectorate of Probation.
Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster PDU, Lambeth PDU and Ealing and Hillingdon PDU each received the lowest rating possible (‘Inadequate’) – an outcome which has led the Inspectorate to call on the Probation Service, at a national level, to take urgent action to support these services.
One of the services – Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster PDU received zero out of a total of 27 inspection points. Both Lambeth PDU and Ealing and Hillingdon PDU each scored just three points.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “These are without doubt some of the poorest probation inspection outcomes we have seen. For a probation delivery unit not to score a single inspection point is something I did not expect, or ever want, to see. But many of the failings are beyond these individual services to fix – the Probation Service, at a national level, must provide urgent assistance.
“These three London probation services have chronic staff shortages, some with less than 50 per cent of the probation practitioners they need, often exacerbated by high rates of sickness too. In one area we found hundreds of cases without a named probation practitioner and therefore not being properly supervised – some of these cases involved individuals who had committed very serious offences.
“Furthermore, even where people on probation did have an allocated officer, we found poor management of cases, with a rating of ‘Inadequate’ for all five of our case quality standards in all three services, with particularly worrying weaknesses around the management of risks of harm to the public. This cannot be allowed to continue. Staff need the necessary resources and clear direction to allow them to supervise individuals safely. It is critical that appropriate services and interventions are delivered to address offending and manage harm.
“Sadly, this is not an issue isolated to London. Of the twelve probation services we have inspected from across England Wales, since reunification, nine have now been rated
‘Inadequate’, with the remaining three services rated as ‘Requires improvement’. This is a stark picture of the position probation services find themselves in. They need strong leadership, sustained resourcing and recruitment and a relentless focus on improving the quality of supervision and risk management if they are to recover.
“I acknowledge the commitment of staff and managers in London to turning things around, despite the challenges they face. We have seen this demonstrated through the urgent HMPPS response to our findings with a commitment to increase staffing levels and review their work in line with our recommendations. I look forward to seeing if this determination, along with regional and national assistance to these local services, can help them to overcome current failures.”
Probation Services, also known as Probation Delivery Units (PDUs*), in three areas of London have each been rated ‘Inadequate’ following inspections by HM Inspectorate of Probation.
Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster PDU, Lambeth PDU and Ealing and Hillingdon PDU each received the lowest rating possible (‘Inadequate’) – an outcome which has led the Inspectorate to call on the Probation Service, at a national level, to take urgent action to support these services.
One of the services – Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster PDU received zero out of a total of 27 inspection points. Both Lambeth PDU and Ealing and Hillingdon PDU each scored just three points.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “These are without doubt some of the poorest probation inspection outcomes we have seen. For a probation delivery unit not to score a single inspection point is something I did not expect, or ever want, to see. But many of the failings are beyond these individual services to fix – the Probation Service, at a national level, must provide urgent assistance.
“These three London probation services have chronic staff shortages, some with less than 50 per cent of the probation practitioners they need, often exacerbated by high rates of sickness too. In one area we found hundreds of cases without a named probation practitioner and therefore not being properly supervised – some of these cases involved individuals who had committed very serious offences.
“Furthermore, even where people on probation did have an allocated officer, we found poor management of cases, with a rating of ‘Inadequate’ for all five of our case quality standards in all three services, with particularly worrying weaknesses around the management of risks of harm to the public. This cannot be allowed to continue. Staff need the necessary resources and clear direction to allow them to supervise individuals safely. It is critical that appropriate services and interventions are delivered to address offending and manage harm.
“Sadly, this is not an issue isolated to London. Of the twelve probation services we have inspected from across England Wales, since reunification, nine have now been rated
‘Inadequate’, with the remaining three services rated as ‘Requires improvement’. This is a stark picture of the position probation services find themselves in. They need strong leadership, sustained resourcing and recruitment and a relentless focus on improving the quality of supervision and risk management if they are to recover.
“I acknowledge the commitment of staff and managers in London to turning things around, despite the challenges they face. We have seen this demonstrated through the urgent HMPPS response to our findings with a commitment to increase staffing levels and review their work in line with our recommendations. I look forward to seeing if this determination, along with regional and national assistance to these local services, can help them to overcome current failures.”
--oo00oo--
Report can be found here:-
Foreword
Such were the scale of our concerns that we raised an ‘organisational alert’ about this PDU with the leadership of the Probation Service during our inspection fieldwork, requiring urgent action to reduce the risks that we found – the first time this has happened since I became Chief Inspector in June 2019. Given the very poor quality of work uncovered by this inspection we have had no choice but to rate this PDU as ‘Inadequate’.
Across all five of our standards for case work, we rated provision as ‘Inadequate’. Of particular concern though, was the fact that over 900 cases in this area had not been allocated to a named probation practitioner, including Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) cases and those with active safeguarding and domestic abuse concerns. We found insufficient contact taking place with these unallocated cases and ineffective monitoring arrangements to keep the public safe which was of serious concern.
Almost all staff felt their workloads were unmanageable which was not surprising given that HFKCW had an overall vacancy rate of 43 per cent. The strategy implemented to try and manage this was complex. This created a sense of anxiety and confusion among staff who, despite best efforts, were struggling to identify what was a priority, and what was not, at any given time. As well as the high staff vacancy rates, high levels of staff sickness were also contributing to the problem and staff retention is a huge issue, with a third of staff having left this PDU in the 12 months prior to the announcement of this inspection.
Strategically, there are clear delivery plans and improved relationships with key partner agencies. While this is encouraging progress, the impact of these is yet to be seen in effective delivery of services and they are unlikely to have the desired impact until the chronic resourcing issues in this PDU are addressed. In many of the cases we assessed there was no meaningful intervention work being undertaken in supervision. Only 20 per cent of people on probation we surveyed said they had access to the services they need via probation.
Whilst the current PDU leaders have made efforts to rectify the dire situation they find themselves in, the reality is that they are unable to do so by themselves and require significant and enhanced support and oversight from national senior leadership teams if they are to make any real progress. Staff and managers across HFKCW will be extremely disappointed with the outcome of this inspection, but we would be doing them a disservice if we did not report openly and honestly about the severity of the situation they are working in.
Justin Russell
Chief Inspector of Probation
Foreword
This was the first of six Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspections in the London region, since the unification of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation Services (NPS) in June 2021. Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea, and Westminster (HFKCW) PDU faces huge challenges, many of which predate the transition to the new probation service, and the Covid-19 pandemic, and have been present for some time.
Such were the scale of our concerns that we raised an ‘organisational alert’ about this PDU with the leadership of the Probation Service during our inspection fieldwork, requiring urgent action to reduce the risks that we found – the first time this has happened since I became Chief Inspector in June 2019. Given the very poor quality of work uncovered by this inspection we have had no choice but to rate this PDU as ‘Inadequate’.
Across all five of our standards for case work, we rated provision as ‘Inadequate’. Of particular concern though, was the fact that over 900 cases in this area had not been allocated to a named probation practitioner, including Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) cases and those with active safeguarding and domestic abuse concerns. We found insufficient contact taking place with these unallocated cases and ineffective monitoring arrangements to keep the public safe which was of serious concern.
Almost all staff felt their workloads were unmanageable which was not surprising given that HFKCW had an overall vacancy rate of 43 per cent. The strategy implemented to try and manage this was complex. This created a sense of anxiety and confusion among staff who, despite best efforts, were struggling to identify what was a priority, and what was not, at any given time. As well as the high staff vacancy rates, high levels of staff sickness were also contributing to the problem and staff retention is a huge issue, with a third of staff having left this PDU in the 12 months prior to the announcement of this inspection.
Strategically, there are clear delivery plans and improved relationships with key partner agencies. While this is encouraging progress, the impact of these is yet to be seen in effective delivery of services and they are unlikely to have the desired impact until the chronic resourcing issues in this PDU are addressed. In many of the cases we assessed there was no meaningful intervention work being undertaken in supervision. Only 20 per cent of people on probation we surveyed said they had access to the services they need via probation.
Whilst the current PDU leaders have made efforts to rectify the dire situation they find themselves in, the reality is that they are unable to do so by themselves and require significant and enhanced support and oversight from national senior leadership teams if they are to make any real progress. Staff and managers across HFKCW will be extremely disappointed with the outcome of this inspection, but we would be doing them a disservice if we did not report openly and honestly about the severity of the situation they are working in.
Justin Russell
Chief Inspector of Probation
--oo00oo--
As a result of our inspection findings, we have made a number of recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of probation services.
HFKCW should:
1. improve the quality of work to assess, plan for, manage and review risk of harm
2. ensure that the interventions necessary to improve desistance and reduce reoffending and risk of harm are provided in all cases
3. improve the arrangements for information sharing to ensure that pre-sentence domestic abuse and safeguarding enquiries are completed and utilised to inform assessment, planning and risk management
4. improve the effectiveness of quality assurance and management oversight of all casework
5. ensure staff have the relevant training to use risk and safeguarding information, obtained from key stakeholders, to appropriately inform risk assessment and sentence plans for people on probation
6. ensure staff with responsibility for case management oversight have the skills, knowledge and time to undertake the work effectively
7. engage with people on probation to inform service delivery
8. complete all actions identified as part of the organisational alert.
London region should:
9. complete all actions identified in the organisational alert
10. ensure priorities are clearly communicated and understood by probation practitioners and middle managers
11. ensure HFKCW has sufficient staffing resource in place
12. ensure that management information in relation to Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) referrals is available for PDU managers and analysed effectively to increase the use of available services.
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service should:
13. consider incentives to improve recruitment and retention of staff
14. improve the support provision to sites assessed as red under the Prioritising Probation Framework (PPF)
6. ensure staff with responsibility for case management oversight have the skills, knowledge and time to undertake the work effectively.
ReplyDeleteStaff are not allocated the necessary time on the WLMT to complete OASYS to a suitable standard, are not allocated the necessary time to engage with offenders, are not given necessary time train/lean and reflect on practice. These issues are not the fault of frontline staff. They are the result of HMPPS’s wilful intent to apply so many unmeetable targets that frontline staff end up the fall guys for a completely dysfunctional service.
This is of course appalling . The unions need to wake up here. Raise objections to staffing levels the abuses of overwork and the failing managerial crisis that our members are left to deal with. They need to use every one of the findings to protect all staff from SFO issues. Exempt staff from any blame when it goes wrong and use the recommendations to demand additional pay for overworking. Protection from issues arising from all the listed failings and a goodwill arrangement to free staff of blame and and managerial attacks until a favourable inspection puts the areas in a positive light. Awful reading yet we know more cuts to come so what's the future now.
ReplyDeleteThe following is the unfortunate response from Regional Probation Director of London whose weak leadership is part of the problem:
ReplyDeleteMessage from Kilvinder: Published
HMIP Reports (London)
Today, the first three London PDU HMIP reports are published. The PDU's are:
• Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster
• Ealing and Hillingdon
• Lambeth
The Inspectors make judgements in two domains: Organisational Delivery (Leadership, Staff, Services, Information and Facilities) and Court Work and Case Supervision. As expected the PDU's were all judged as inadequate. The Inspectors acknowledged that staffing levels were insufficient in the PDU's and that this had a significant impact on the sufficiency of casework.
Nevertheless, there were some positives within Organisational Delivery. The Inspectors thought that the PDU's had strong leaders who engaged with staff and who had a plan to improve service delivery; they thought that there were services available regionally and locally to enable people on probation to desist from offending; and finally they thought that we used our management information to influence local partnerships’ commissioning of services and to focus on learning and development goals, and that people on probation generally thought our offices were welcoming and accessible.
However, our case supervision and court work scores were considered inadequate across all areas in the PDU's. Inspectors have recommended that we:
• improve the quality of our work to assess, plan for, manage and review risk of harm
• improve information-sharing to inform and manage risk
•improve our management oversight
• improve our use of interventions to enable desistance
I don't think for one second that if it had been any other PDU inspected that the outcomes would have been significantly different, and so we must take this as a broad call to focus on improving our practice. I think that, even with the staffing shortages that we have in most PDU's, we can make some quick wins in practice improvement by focusing on the right things, particularly safeguarding children, pre-release planning, recording and our use of professional curiosity. I have asked Andrew Blight, Head of Operations, to lead this work and so once we have the published reports of the three final PDU's - Lewisham and Bromley; Barking, Dagenham and Havering; and Newham - at the end of November, together we will launch our Quality of Practice Improvement Plan. We have also received an overview of the region, that summarises their views of the whole London region, which we will share when formally received.
I said at the top of this message that the results are no surprise given unification, the COVID pandemic and our staffing deficits, but we now have a solid foundation on which to build and I look forward to working with you all over the next year so that HMIP will be able to see the improvements when they return to inspect six additional PDU's at some point next year.
Thank you for your continued hard work.
Kilvinder Vigurs
Regional Probation Director
I suspect the author is a beneficiary of the accelerated career path for under represented but that in itself won't give management the right experience of practice.
DeleteThe suggestion of practice changes to hit score is unhelpful in the same light of not enough staff. Blame COVID only illustrates his avoidance.
Strong leaders but inadequate ratings is not an equation that I recognise, weak, bullying leaders who do everything to feather their own nest is more like it
DeleteExcellaerated career path for under represented. That's not a I'll informed prejudicial view at all Shame on you. And these are pdu inspections so yes you can have strong leadership but poor results sometimes even the best leaders and teams are screwed by a broken system
DeleteOh fantastic! A Quality of Practice Improvement Plan!
DeleteHow demoralising for the staff, to be told their work "scored zero"....and for the directlor (and HMPPS) to emphasise "strong leadership", "services offered by other agencies" and fabulous "management information" - is she perhaps referring to all that data practitioners have been putting into Delius, in preference of actual work?
Very few words of encouragement here other than corporate clap trap.
“I have asked Andrew Blight, Head of Operations, to lead this work”
DeleteHahaha. Well that’s failed before it’s even off the starting block !
So the leadership was so strong they scored zero.
DeleteWow, really strong leadership!
I don’t know how anything will improve with high work loads and staffing issues. Kilvinder Vigurs’ message does not surprise me as she is taking the easiest approach by blaming staff rather looking at her failures as the head of the busiest Probation area. Shame on her! We need our unions to become like the RMT and grow some balls.
ReplyDelete- Fed up PO
Sounds like Andrew Blight, Head of Operations, just got his botty smacked by the boss of London Probation. I think as a punishment he’s been tasked to lead the renovation work.
DeleteAndrew Blight like his boss will not solve any issues and will probably delegate the task lower down the food chain.
DeleteOh my.
ReplyDelete"I don't think for one second that if it had been any other PDU inspected that the outcomes would have been significantly different, and so we must take this as a broad call to focus on improving our practice." It is seamless, the acknowledgement of the problem: the service is in freefall, desperately short of staff, and then the exhortation to knackered and traumatised staff to improve their practice: the old school report, "Must try harder".
.
Quick tick on the "blame the pandemic" box. (Do they have an MoJ micromanager checking every com?)
and then "but we now have a solid foundation on which to build"...
MoJ micro managers seem to have deleted the Deep Appreciation Of Our Goodwill box in their Quality Assurance Project for Management Spin, doubtless another well funded empire, presumeably because they know full well that their isn't any left.
Time was when an elegant and carefully crafted PSR would lead the reader to a logical conclusion: in the majority of cases to avoid a custodial sentence. This bit of typical - and increasingly desperate spin- is not of that ilk Mainly because, I guess, the writer is hopelessly conflicted. Imagine the congitive dissonance eating away at our so called leaders.
Back at Napo AGM we passed a motion:
"HMPPS Probation Model Irredeemably Flawed:
The consistently poor HMIP inpsection reports tell a sorry tale, but the Inspector falls short in failing to say what everybody knows, that the HMPPS governed Probation Service is a model that is "irrredeemably flawed". It is, after all, one half of the TR model that was assessed by the then chief inspector as irredeemably flawed.
Napo will redouble our demands for Probation to be taken out of the civil service, and unshackled from the Prison Service. Napo members will write to their MPs making this position clear. The NEC will draft a suggested briefing note and letter, and Napo will engage in a press and communications exercise, responding to each of the inevitable future "poor" and "needs improvement" inspection reports making this position clear"
So: over to you Napo: we need to accelerate the rescue of Probation from the jaws of the civil service and being swallowed by the Prison Service (to whom solidarity and respect btw) before we are extinguished.
We are better than this.
Pearly Gates
“So: over to you Napo:”
DeleteHahaha.
Rubbish training
ReplyDeletePoor pay
Bullying
Excessive case loads
No career progression
Better pay in YOS
I wonder why no staff ?
The leadership take for granted the goodwill of the staff. But it’s running out and I encourage everyone, who is able, to seriously consider jumping ship as this rusty ship is sinking fast. It appears to be no longer salvageable.
DeleteNapo mailout this afternoon:-
ReplyDeleteDear Xxxxxx,
Today’s HMIP reports will come as a hard blow to dedicated members working across London. Napo stands in solidarity with all staff in the London region. We are all aware of the staffing crisis in Probation but it is more acute in London than another region. Napo will be making representations on your behalf to HMPPS and will be asking for a short, medium and long term strategy to address this critical situation.
Work related stress: Napo’s full stress guidance here - https://www.napo.org.uk/news/napo-guidance-work-related-stress
Best Wishes
Ian Lawrence Helen Banner
General Secretary National Chair
Ok a Napo mail and I'm guessing they read 1229 to wake up. This contradictory tosh standing in solidarity. What are they on over there. Criticism from the report in any area in is not our fault. We welcome it and it is not a hard blow. It is a highlight of the plight we suffer. We are subject to these conditions and welcome the findings. This is evidence hard and real. The Napo GS makes another stupid observation which is wrong. I hope he reads this and work out it's his job to defend by criticising the structures and managers that led staff into this crisis. While I am insensed at the spineless Napo mail out it does not follow at this stage any need to seek a long term strategy and no medium either. You must focus on the here and now it's a crisis of confidence in management. You need to engage in talks immediately over staff protections which automatically flow to mid term plans. You need to have proposals canvased from affected members all staff. Informed talks on crisis issues. immediate improvement by way of an emergency staff care plan. Napo stop grabbing buzzy phrases get a proper consulted plan and some fu*"<+ work done. Lazy useless union. Here is your next step now go get on with it.
Delete“We are all aware of the staffing crisis in Probation but it is more acute in London”
DeleteNo it isn’t. Other places are just as bad. Napo couldn’t fix itself let along fix probation.
From Twitter and former CPO Sally Lewis:-
ReplyDelete"As an ex Chief Probation Officer these are the most troubling findings imaginable. The stress under which staff are operating must be overwhelming. The residents of London deserve so much better protection. Govt decision to make probation staff civil servants has been disastrous."
From Twitter and Andy Smith, PI Trustee:-
Delete"As an ex inspector these are the most worrying inspection findings I have ever seen. Public safety is at risk. There has to be a fundamental rethink of how probation services are delivered. It must be uncoupled from the dead hand of the Civil Service."
Thanks Jim two observations clear on message of the issues from people of ex senior level yet the Napo mail out by comparison is not pedestrian it's less than remedial . I despair no wonder things are like this.
DeleteMeanwhile Jim Barton and Amy Rees plough ahead with the dumbass One HMPPS plan.
DeleteOne more time with feeling - do not complete the people's survey.
ReplyDeleteThe best way of communicating your contempt for the clowns in charge is to ignore their desperate bleating for enagagement.
They view lack of engagement with far more concern than your carefully worded comments in the section about your team.
It never changes anything. We've complained about wages since 2014 and they have given us nothing but wage cuts.
Do not complete the survey
Recommendations
ReplyDeleteHFKCW should:
Get an office with a car park.
London region should:
Send all these back to do frontline probation officer work.
Heads of service
Heads of operation
Serious further offence team
Complaints team
Performance team
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service should:
Pay probation officers a decent wage.
Regional Director: "Nevertheless, there were some positives within Organisational Delivery. The Inspectors thought that the PDU's had strong leaders who engaged with staff and who had a plan to improve service delivery"
ReplyDeleteUsual stench of egoistic, blinkered bullshit inspired & encouraged by Justin's fence-sitting habit:
HFKCW: "Whilst the current PDU leaders have made efforts to rectify the dire situation"
Lambeth: "We were impressed by the governance and accountability framework in place, led by the head of the PDU, which had driven improvements against key performance indicators."
EH: "staff were positive about the support received from managers and senior leaders"
But at least this time he has fired shots at HMPPS:
"require significant and enhanced support and oversight from national senior leadership teams"
"The issues of resourcing, while needing regional attention,
also require intervention from national senior leaders."
"A national approach is needed to improve this critical aspect of probation practice."
The reality is that its all a stinking pile, there needs to be a clearout of the status quo, the chumocracy, the star bakers, the ineffective, the useless.
Probation needs Justin to state explicitly & without equivocation that it should be completely & irreversibly removed from HMPPS, put in a state of independent agency & that the "excellent leaders" are NOT excellent, nor are they "strong" or effective or anything positive. They are as much of the problem as Grayling, TR, Romeo, Rees, etc
Justin, have a chat with Andy Smith: "[Probation] must be uncoupled from the dead hand of the Civil Service."
From Twitter:-
ReplyDelete"I love my job but I just feel like I’m ‘putting out fires’ day to day I can’t remember the last time I did a piece of work that I was proud of. I hope this changes not just for my own sanity/well being/job fulfilment but also for the sake of offenders, victims and communities."
This is what probation always was. Once you accept you cannot do it all in a day it becomes manageable.
Delete