Guest Blog 88

Radio Silence

My rant got a little longer than I anticipated so up to you if you think it’s useable for the blog or you want to just tweet in chunks. The blog piece on leadership in policing makes for a good read thank you for sharing. It did get me to wondering just how long Kilvinder Vigurs, Regional Director of London Probation can possibly hope to cling on to her leadership? The ‘nil point’ inspections and organisational alerts they subsequently triggered, coupled with the damning London Assembly investigation findings released yesterday 20/1/23 make for sombre reading. Meanwhile London’s leader appears to happily retweet pictures of London’s community payback contributions, without public comment on any of the very real issues raised.

On a more general point about leadership, once again I find myself disappointed by what feels like an agreed radio silence from HMPPS on the headlines dominating probation news this week, where are the public acknowledgments of tragedy and of the desperate need for support at a ministerial level right down to the frontline? Whereas Sonia Flynn and Jo Farrar opted to tweet nothing at all, perhaps worse than this was Amy Reese and Antonia Romeo’s tweets over the last few days. The former opting to tweet a selection of posed pictures from a meet & greet with prisons officers that had marched at the queens funeral last year, the latter a self congratulatory post of her two years in position along with some selfies from an awards ceremony somewhere in ‘the centre’. 

It goes without saying Raab said nothing at all. In fact I’d be happy for the readers of this blog to point me in the direction of any recognition from a senior probation leader on Twitter or elsewhere in response to the Damian Bendall's tragedy or indeed the multiplying inadequate inspections and investigations that are coming through thick and fast. I suspect this will be a difficult task. Once again, the very people that profess to be our leaders, are the ones refusing to stand up and support the organisation. At a time when morale must be at an all time low for those doing what they can on the frontline day in day out, it really is shameful behaviour. 

Postscript 

After submitting this post I came across the Probation Institute’s response to the SFO inquiry, a supportive statement that I’m sure is welcomed by practitioners and probation family alike.

STATEMENT FROM THE PROBATION INSTITUTE

The Independent Serious Further Offences Review of the Damien Bendall case is a difficult and distressing read. We would like to encourage all our members, practitioners, academics and wider organisations to read this review. There is serious criticism of practice. There is clear recognition of the huge pressures on probation going back to at least 2016, including the ongoing challenges for senior probation officers struggling to supervise the management of cases in a way that enables probation practitioners to effectively manage and reduce risk of harm.

Among the serious concerns is the inappropriate allocation of this case to a young Asian Probation Services Officer with only 6 months experience in the probation service. Damien Bendall had committed offences of violence against Asian men and claimed to be a member of a white supremacist organisation. This aspect of the case reminds us of the very critical HMI report on race equality in Probation published in 2020, and further emphasises the need for urgent action on race equality.

The review also draws attention, not sufficiently in our view, to the inadequacy of the fast delivery verbal report which was used to inform the court sentencing Damien Bendall in June 2021. The Probation Institute is firmly of the view that in all cases - but particularly where there is knowledge of alcohol abuse, children and serious previous convictions - fast delivery verbal reports are not appropriate, and cases should be adjourned for full reports. We would want to ask why the court found this type of report suitable given the previous convictions? And why the court considered it right to make both a curfew order and an alcohol treatment order to an address where there were children - on the basis of the fast delivery verbal report without further enquiries. The justice system must be collaborative and function as a system with all players accepting responsibility for the sentencing decisions. It is not enough simply to blame the probation practitioners.

--oo00oo--

That London Assembly Report:-

Executive summary 

From June 2021, the newly formed London Probation Service became responsible for the delivery of probation services in London. This was part of a major programme by the government to reunify probation across England and Wales under a single Probation Service, after the decision to bring to an end the Transforming Rehabilitation model. 

One year on from the creation of the London Probation Service, the London Assembly Police and Crime Committee launched an investigation to see how these reforms have impacted the delivery of services in London. 

The Committee held two evidence sessions to inform the investigation; and conducted a call for evidence to allow for others in London to share their views. The Committee would like to thank all those who so generously shared their expertise to inform this investigation. 

The Committee was impressed by the work of statutory partners to implement the major reform to probation services under challenging circumstances. It was also delighted to hear a real sense of optimism from guests that the Probation Service is on much stronger footing following reunification. 

However, the London Probation Service is still in its infancy and faces many challenges over the coming months and years to make its target delivery model operational. This report sets out several key findings from the Committee’s investigation. It highlights areas for further focus in order to realise the opportunities of the new model for probation: 

• The London Probation Service is facing a crisis in staffing at all levels that threatens the future viability of the reunified service. Challenges to recruitment and retention are stark and will require creative solutions to address. 

• Pressures on capacity mean probation staff are struggling to provide full and considered advice to courts, which limits magistrates’ abilities to make appropriate and effective sentencing decisions. 

• Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people face significant and specific challenges on probation, and the Committee is not confident that the London Probation Service is doing enough to ensure equitable treatment and outcomes for people in this cohort. 

• MOPAC has taken an innovative approach to supporting women on probation, through both the delivery of its co-commissioned pan-London service for female offenders, and its blueprint for female offenders. With both programmes due to be renewed this year, further investment and improvements will be needed to realise positive outcomes from these programmes.  A full list of guests and respondents to the call for evidence is included in the appendix to this report.  

• People are still leaving prison without access to basic amenities and services, with no clear signs that pre-release and resettlement support has improved under the reunified model. This is a major gap in the new delivery model that requires attention from both prisons and the London Probation Service. 

• The barriers to accessing safe and stable accommodation are insurmountable for some people on probation. Recent investment from the government in community accommodation will reduce the number of people leaving prison and entering homelessness; but the London Probation Service and London boroughs need to do more to help people on probation find stable long-term accommodation. 

• The commissioning model for the probation service is too complex and bureaucratic, which has excluded smaller and more specialist organisations from delivering services. 

• MOPAC, the London Probation Service leadership and front-line probation staff do not know what community services are available and how these services can support statutory agencies to reduce reoffending. This means statutory agencies are not making the most of community specialist services that can have a real impact on reducing reoffending. The Committee makes 13 recommendations, which are set out below.

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1 

MOPAC should meet with the London Probation Service before the end of March 2023 to discuss how it can support a large-scale recruitment campaign for probation staff in London. 

Recommendation 2 

The Mayor should work with the Regional Probation Director for London and regional representatives of Napo to deliver a proposal to HMPPS for the payment of either: a) market forces supplements to all people working in roles within the London Probation Service that are subject to high vacancy levels or low retention rates; or b) an uplift in London weighting for all roles within the London Probation Service. 

Recommendation 3 

His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service, the Magistrates Association and the London Probation Service should establish a joint mechanism to record and report on the quality of pre-sentence reports provided to sentencers in London Magistrates’ Courts. This information should be used by the London Probation Service to drive improvements in the advice it provides to courts. 

Recommendation 4 

MOPAC should update the London Blueprint for a Whole System Approach to Women in Contact with the Criminal Justice System to include substantive commitments on how statutory agencies will work together operationally to reduce gaps between services. 

Recommendation 5 

MOPAC should establish a London blueprint for Black men and boys in contact with the criminal justice system, which brings together prisons, the London Probation Service and Black-led organisations to agree a set of actions to improve the support provided to Black men and boys under probation supervision. 

Recommendation 6 

The London Probation Service should publish an annual review of its work to support the HMPPS Race Action Plan. 

Recommendation 7 

Recognising the staffing crisis in probation, including the chronic shortage of resettlement staff, the London Probation Service should work with the London Prisons Group Director to  empower key workers in prisons to make referrals to contracted probation providers prior to someone’s release. 

Recommendation 8 

The London Probation Service should work with prisons, MOPAC, local NHS providers and London Councils to establish improved referral pathways for prison leavers into community mental health services. 

Recommendation 9 

MOPAC should work with the London Probation Service, the London Prison Group Director and London Councils to ensure all London boroughs make it possible for people to submit housing applications from prison, rather than only after release. This should include providing people in prison with better access to computers and telephones to contact London boroughs prior to release. 

Recommendation 10 

MOPAC should work with the London Probation Service and London Councils to ensure all contracted providers of probation services are able to make referrals to local authorities under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. 

Recommendation 11 

MOPAC should coordinate a new joint protocol which will set out how to maximise the opportunities presented by Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS3) to secure long-term sustainable accommodation for people on probation. This work should involve: 

• the successful CAS3 provider 

• the London Probation Service 

• the London Prisons Group 

• London Councils 

• all 32 London boroughs 

• the contracted provider of accommodation services to people on probation (currently St Mungo’s) 

• G15 Housing Associations.

Recommendation 12 

The London Probation Service should work alongside MOPAC to lead a programme of engagement with probation staff, people on probation, and voluntary and community groups, to identify gaps and needs in each London borough. This should inform how the London Probation Service allocates grant funding through the Regional Outcomes and Innovation Fund, and future grant-making decisions. 

Recommendation 13 

MOPAC and the London Probation Service should conduct a review of local voluntary and community sector services in London that work with people on probation. This joint mapping exercise should result in a London Services for People on Probation database. The London Probation Service should host and maintain this database, and make it available to all probation staff via its intranet.