“what about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project.” “Ah,” said the marketing girl, “well, we’re having a little difficulty there.” “Difficulty?” exclaimed Ford. “Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It’s the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!” The marketing girl soured him with a look “All right, Mr. Wiseguy,” she said, “you’re so clever, you tell us what colour it should be.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
--oo00oo--
Right from the beginning of this endeavour I have written extensively on the importance of the PSR,
but it seems as if those clever people in charge at the MoJ seem to take ages to join up the dots:-
A pre-sentence report is advice given to the court following the facts of the case, expert risks and needs assessments, including an independent sentencing proposal and additional relevant information. They must be as objective as possible and exist to assist the judiciary with sentencing.
The number of pre-sentence reports written in England and Wales has decreased in recent years – from 211,494 in 2010 to 103,004 in 2019.This was an area of concern in the 2020 white paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, which stated that “The purpose of a pre-sentence report (PSR) is to facilitate the administration of justice, and to reduce an offender’s likelihood of reoffending and to protect the public and/or victim(s) from further harm. A PSR does this by assisting the court to determine the most suitable method of sentencing an offender (Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 158)”.
The paper proposed that “further work is undertaken to build the evidence base on the impact that a PSR has […] on offender outcomes, sentencing behaviour and the efficient administration of justice”. Following this, a PSR pilot began in March 2021. Separately, this report examines the impact of a PSR oral or fast delivery report on the reason that a court order (or sentence) terminated. This analysis specifically looks at adults sentenced to a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order (with requirements) in England and Wales in 2016.
1.2 Key findings
The overall results show statistically significant evidence that those who received a PSR oral or PSR fast delivery in 2016 were more likely to successfully complete their court order, compared with a group of similar offenders who did not receive a PSR. In particular:
- 80% of those who received a PSR fast delivery in 2016 successfully completed their court order. This is higher than for similar offenders who did not receive any type of PSR (73%).
- 73% of those who received a PSR oral in 2016 successfully completed their court order.
This is higher than for similar offenders who did not receive any type of PSR (68%). These impacts on completion of court orders are based on estimates of what would happen if instead of receiving a PSR oral or fast delivery, the case had not received a PSR. This analysis includes PSRs prepared for both magistrate and crown courts.
The results of this analysis should not be directly compared to termination outcomes in other analyses or to figures such as national averages due to the use of a time-bounded sample, and the propensity score matching (PSM) technique used to ensure otherwise dissimilar groups were comparable. In addition, the results for PSR fast delivery and PSR orals should not be directly compared.
The results of this analysis should not be regarded as definitive; it is intended to provide initial evidence of the impact of PSRs and so only looks at the reason that a court order terminates as an outcome. The limitations of this study are discussed in section 5.1 alongside suggestions for areas that could be valuable to explore in greater depth. However, these findings increase the evidence on the effectiveness of PSRs and therefore it can be recommended that oral and fast delivery reports are requested and delivered to increase successful termination of court orders.
The analysis found statistically significant evidence that an offender sentenced in 2016 that received a PSR fast delivery or PSR oral was more likely to successfully complete their court order and less likely to terminate early for failure to comply with requirements or conviction between 2016-2019, compared with a group of similar offenders which did not receive a PSR – see the main results in Appendix E.
4.1 PSR Fast Delivery
- ~80% of those who received a PSR fast delivery in 2016 successfully completed their court order. This is significantly higher than the comparison group (7 percentage points higher) which comprised similar offenders to those who received a PSR fast delivery but did not receive a PSR.
- ~11% of those who received a PSR fast delivery in 2016 terminated their court order early for conviction of a further offence. This is significantly lower than the comparison group (4 percentage points lower) which comprised similar offenders to those who received a PSR fast delivery but did not receive a PSR.
- ~9% of those who received a PSR fast delivery in 2016 terminated their court order early for failure to comply with requirements. This is significantly lower than the comparison group (3 percentage points lower) which comprised similar offenders to those who received a PSR fast delivery but did not receive a PSR.
4.2 PSR Oral
- ~73% of those who received an oral PSR in 2016 successfully completed their court order. This is significantly higher than the comparison group (5 percentage points higher) which comprised similar offenders who did not received a PSR.
- ~15% of those who received an oral PSR in 2016 terminated their court order early for conviction of a further offence. This is significantly lower than the comparison group (2 percentage points lower) which comprised similar offenders to those who received a PSR oral but did not receive a PSR.
- ~13% of those who received an oral PSR in 2016 terminated their court order early for failure to comply with requirements. This is significantly lower than the comparison group (2 percentage points lower) which comprised similar offenders to those who received an oral PSR but did not receive a PSR.
Please note the analysis of PSR oral and PSR fast delivery should not be directly compared as the matched comparison groups contain different offenders with different characteristics. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that fast delivery reports were 7% more likely to terminate successfully than oral reports, although the relative efficacy of fast delivery and oral PSRs is of interest.
5. Discussion
These findings demonstrate that the requesting of a PSR oral or PSR fast delivery is related to the successful completion of a court order, and therefore it is recommended that these reports are requested and delivered.
Additionally, these findings support the wider work across the MoJ to increase the instances of advice being given to court in the form of a PSR.
This study does not consider the influence of a PSR report on the sentence handed down. As PSRs typically propose a sentence, the extent to which, if at all, the advice of the PSR is implemented and further work to explore whether these findings are impacted by the PSR advice being followed would be useful.
While in Section 3.3 Assumptions, it was considered that further data linking (e.g. to extracts from OASys and the PNC14) might reduce sample size and bias the dataset towards more complex cases, this assumption could be tested. Making further “presentencing” variables available for review/matching would enable the goodness of match between the treatment and control groups to be verified or improved, and facilitate further analysis of the relationship between sentence completion and sentence characteristics, and the impact of a PSR on these characteristics.
Additionally, whilst the groups receiving PSR oral and PSR fast were different in some ways, in other characteristics, such as gender, they were similarly distributed. It would be useful to consider whether the PSR report has the same statistical significance across all different groups.
Research on the quality of a pre-sentence report was undertaken in 2020, which questioned whether PSRs provided sufficiently analytical and personalised (to the service user) advice, in order to aid with the court’s decision making (HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2020). The report considered “standard” (these can take up to 15 working days to complete, and are used for serious cases involving high complexity or serious sexual or violent crime), “short format” (fast delivery) and oral reports, and found that 97% of standard delivery reports, 82% of the short format, and 65% of the oral reports were sufficiently analytical and personalised to the service user (although it is noted that only 30 (4%) of the reports available were standard delivery reports; 535 (67%) were oral and 237 (30%) were short format). This report was broadly supportive of the HMPPS reforms promoting the use of PSRs, and indicated that fast delivery PSRs might offer a necessary increase in analytical depth relative to oral PSRs. However, as noted before, the dataset used in this study contains no information on the quality of each report, and the oral and fast delivery cohorts considered by this study are not directly comparable. This suggestion would therefore require further investigation, e.g. by matching cohorts between PSR types.
This study considers only the reason for court order termination. While the successful completion of a court order is desirable and indicates no reoffending during the period of the sentence, it is not a direct proxy for reoffending (arguably the most desirable outcome) or for other outcomes that might be considered markers of “success”. The evidence base for PSR reports would be augmented by investigation into the relationship between a case that receives a PSR in court and further outcomes related to the offender, for example whether they attended their initial meeting with a probation officer, reoffended (following the expiry of the court order), had suitable accommodation or employment post-sentence.
As you have previously pointed out, JB, carnivoran mammals of the family Ursidae regularly defecate in heavily wooded areas:
ReplyDelete"These findings demonstrate that the requesting of a PSR oral or PSR fast delivery is related to the successful completion of a court order, and therefore it is recommended that these reports are requested and delivered." ***ROFL***
"This report was broadly supportive of the HMPPS reforms promoting the use of PSRs, and indicated that fast delivery PSRs might offer a necessary increase in analytical depth relative to oral PSRs."
But once again the Emperor's couturier makes an important alteration, a dart here & a tuck there:
"the dataset used in this study contains no information on the quality of each report, and the oral and fast delivery cohorts considered by this study are not directly comparable"
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pre-sentence-report-pilot-in-15-magistrates-courts
ReplyDelete"A pre-sentence report (PSR) is an expert assessment of the nature and causes of an offender’s behaviour, the risk they pose and to whom, as well as an independent recommendation of the sentencing option(s) available to the court."
"As highlighted in the Sentencing White Paper, published in September 2020, there was a significant decrease in the number of PSR’s being requested by the Judiciary between 2010-2018."
Why?
"A sharp decline in the use of community sentences is due to trust breaking down between judges, magistrates and the probation service after privatisation, according to a study by a justice thinktank.
Since 2011, there has been a 24% fall in the number of non-custodial sentences imposed in England and Wales at a time when Scottish courts are using them far more frequently."
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/judges-lose-faith-in-community-orders-xvmxmn29w
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/speedy-justice-deterring-magistrates-from-releasing-offenders/5063588.article
"Jowett said: 'We are being pushed for speedy justice these days. If someone is before us and pleads guilty, we are expected to deal with them on the day... However, speedy justice 'is not so good for us when we sentence sometimes [because of the] lack of information', Jowett warned. The National Probation Service, which supervises high-risk offenders released into the community, has 'little time to investigate the person in front of us'.
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/06/The-work-of-probation-services-in-courts-report.pdf
The probation instruction ‘Determining Pre-Sentence Reports - Sentencing within the new framework (PI 04/2016)’, indicates that a PSR should contain (as a minimum) but is not limited to:
• offence analysis and the pattern of offending, beyond a restating of the facts of the case
• relevant offender circumstances, with links to offending behaviour highlighted, as either a contributing factor or a protective factor
• risk of harm and likelihood of reoffending analysis, based on static predictors and clinical judgement
• the outcome of pre-sentence checks with other agencies or providers of probation services, including if any checks are still outstanding
• the addressing of any indications provided by the court
• sentence proposals that are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and will address the offender’s assessed risk and needs
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/determining-pre-sentence-reports-pi-042016
Some words & phrases that give cause for concern in the context of "PSR Fast Delivery" & "PSR Oral":
* expert assessment
* analysis... beyond a restating of the facts of the case
* static predictors and clinical judgement
* outcome of pre-sentence checks
And these reports are done on the day by who?
90 minutes allowed to get the CPS package, find a room and the defendant, do the interview, do the OGRs etc, then write up and deliver back to the Court. Honestly believe our excellent senior leaders should have to do one report a quarter that really would end this mad and bad process!
Delete"The number of pre-sentence reports written in England and Wales has decreased in recent years – from 211,494 in 2010 to 103,004 in 2019."
DeleteProbation Instruction 05/2011 was the source of much of the damage to the report writing culture - aided & abetted by compliant & court-shy managers - with its stated aim of "increasing to 70% the proportion of court reports delivered on the day..." & "longer written reports ... are limited to exceptional circumstances"
"oral reports are suitable for use across the sentence thresholds regardless of whether the seriousness of the offence os low, medium or high...trusts can use existing court report templates but must remove reference to 'fast' in the title. All reports must be entitled Pre Sentence Reports (PSRs)... professional moderation can be used to alter the format of the report in an individual case... Probation trust Contract managers MUST ensure that all staff are aware of this instruction..."
PI04/2016 was the post-TR revision:
• All advice to courts is reserved to the NPS
• The production of reports delivered on the day is maximised as far as possible in line with the specification, Better Case Management and Transforming Summary Justice
• Longer written reports are limited to exceptional circumstances
The legislative framework for PSRs is contained in sections 156 to 159 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 subsequently amended by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) 2014. The Act does not prescribe the format or the length of time required to provide information to the court.
While Crown court cases may require reports taking up to 15 days, some may be suitable for on the day PSRs. The majority of reports for Magistrates’ court cases are likely to be presented orally or delivered in written format on the day.
Where the offender is unknown the report should be based on one face-to-face interview. Courts should be made aware that the report will be based on the assessment of the facts available on the day. Proposals should take into account the offender’s compliance with the pre-sentence process, and should suggest what implications this behaviour may have for compliance with sentencing options.
PSRs completed on 18 – 24 year old offenders must include consideration of maturity. Guidance for PSR writers is available, Taking account of Maturity which can inform a maturity assessment.
Before I retired I managed a court team in the North of England. The quality of all forms of PSRs were poor. In fact some were rubbish and got pulled on a regular basis. I don’t blame the authors it was all the meddling at strategic levels that created this situation.
ReplyDeleteAnother shade of wheel:
ReplyDeletehttps://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20081105163150mp_/http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/research-problems-needs-prisoners.pdf
"The problems and needs of newly sentenced prisoners: results from a national survey (2008):
4. Conclusions
The findings from this survey illustrate the range of substantial health and social problems experienced by sentenced prisoners before custody. These extend beyond offending and include unemployment, lack of qualifications, unstable accommodation, drug misuse, heavy drinking and psychological health problems. Consistent with previous research (SEU, 2002), the prevalence of sentenced prisoners’ problems was greater than among the general adult population"
No shit...!
Herewith a perfect example of moj staff justifying their ongoing existence:
ReplyDeletehttps://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20081105162840mp_/http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/research-factors-reoffending.pdf
"Factors linked to reoffending: a one-year follow-up of prisoners who took part in the Resettlement Surveys 2001, 2003 and 2004.
Conclusions
This study highlights which factors may play the
most important role in decreasing the likelihood of
reoffending in the first year after release... The results confirm many of the links between reoffending and offenders’ characteristics, history and circumstances known from previous research... these findings do indicate that interventions might be having some effect, and that there is value in undertaking additional research to examine this further."
Recommend or don’t recommend. Lock people up or don’t lock them up. Unless people are helped with housing, jobs, income, addictions and social support there won’t be much change.
ReplyDeleteRemember the day you needed to be a qualified probation officer with had completed a quality university based training course to write reports ? Now anyone can write one , teaching , social work, nursing have all maintained role boundaries and quality training , probation is utterly de professionalised and low brow now from BBC2 to ITV
ReplyDeleteI'm quite torn with PSRs. A PSR is a spoke in the wheel of probation, but it's a very poor relation to the Social Inquiry Report, which in my opinion was the hub of the probation wheel which all other spokes extended from.
ReplyDeleteThere is value in PSRs, but half an hour with a defendant prior to sentence tics the box, but falls far short of the qualitative investigation that the PSR should be all about.
I'm thinking lately, that in the world of criminal justice and rehabilitation, probation is now part of the problem rather then part of the solution.
If wheels are being reinvented, then return probation to a profession that people are proud to be part of, instead of a job to do that nobody's happy with.
'Getafix
"Court report writing
ReplyDeleteProbation officers may be asked to prepare a Social Enquiry Report on an offender prior to sentence by the summary courts (Magistrates and High Bailiff’s) or at the Court of General Gaol Delivery (similar to the UK’s Crown Court).
The probation officer interviews the defendant and, whilst considering their background, provides an analysis of the offence(s) committed, the offender’s employment situation, any drug or alcohol abuse and other factors before writing a report explaining the defendant’s circumstances.
The aim is to consider areas of risk, for instance the risk of re-offending and the risk to the public.
To risk assess offenders using appropriate tools, a risk of harm assessment is used in conjunction with a risk of re-offending tool which is the List of Standard Index – Revised (LSI-R) accredited risk assessment process. LSI-R is the standard risk assessment tool and contains 54 questions that build up a predictive figure relating to risk of likelihood of re-offending.
The 54 questions cover a variety of different areas relating to the offender which may have a noticeable effect on their likelihood to re-offend. The different areas that are considered are education, employment, finances, alcohol and drugs, criminal history, accommodation, family, marital relationships and personal attitude.
It is recognised that the risk of re-offending and the likelihood of future harm being caused by an offender are different but connected assessments. The risk of harm (through the risk analysis form), and the risk of re-offending, (through the LSI-R) needs to be routinely assessed every quarter throughout the period of contact with the service, and are subject to managerial oversight where the risk of harm is assessed as high.
In addition, probation officers use a number of other specific assessment tools depending on the offending behaviour involved. These include SARA and ODARA, which are both tools that assess offenders charged with domestic violence offences, and the Matrix 2000 tool which is designed to assess sex offenders."
The above is from IoM probation
DeleteThe aim is to understand the person you're working with. The rest is tic box.
ReplyDelete'Getafix
.
No it is all tick box.
Deleteeither JB isn't updating or there's no appetite for, interest in or concern about the role of PSRs - past or present.
ReplyDeleteI suspect getafix has nailed it: "probation is now part of the problem rather then part of the solution"
To extend that thought into today's organisational context:
"probation is now part of hmpps rather than an independent agency"
"either JB isn't updating or there's no appetite for, interest in or concern about the role of PSRs - past or present."
DeleteIt's the latter.
It’s because they farmed out PSR’s to Court POs so no longer integral to the PO role nor part of the sentence management model.
DeleteNot much interest anywhere.
Deletehttps://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/23621023.probation-services-st-helens-knowsley-rated-inadequate/
https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-66051689.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16880518128176&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-merseyside-66051689
DeleteContext is everything.
Delete"In St Helens and Knowsley, inspectors stated how only 24 per cent of cases showed "sufficient assessment of the potential risk of serious harm posed by the person on probation". "
But in context...
"Like other probation services in the region, Knowsley and St Helens are hindered by delays in receiving vital information – probation services in the Merseyside area were waiting for 1,350 domestic abuse enquiries to be returned by the police at the time of our inspection... Without this information, probation officers do not have a full picture of the person on probation they are supervising, especially the potential risk of serious harm they may pose to actual or potential victims."
Also:
"high workloads, staff vacancies, inexperienced new recruits, and insufficient training opportunities"
Who gets thrown under the bus at the sfo review? One hmpps? The 'excellent' well-fed managers? Or the poor fucker in Silo X holding 100+ cases, covering for colleagues, unable to access professional development or training, barely able to sleep at night due to the stress & now labelled "inadequate" by the inspectorate.
Its a Bullies Charter.
Knowsley:
Delete"...the leaders of this service have worked hard to build a strong, committed team, relationships are strong with many key partners, and staff morale is positive..."
And as a result?
"The quality of work delivered to manage people on probation was insufficient across all four of our standards for casework... Only 24 per cent of cases inspected were sufficient in the delivery of services to effectively support the safety of other people, and assessments around the risk of harm were equally concerning, with only 24 per cent of cases being sufficiently assessed."
'Pool North:
"Leaders were approachable and visible... Managers were skilled, knowledgeable and were providing high levels of support to many practitioners... "
But...
"...three out of four standards rated as ‘Inadequate’... We were concerned about the poor quality of the work undertaken to ensure the safety of others and the current ability of the service to protect actual and potential victims... "
Oh.
"The PDU has a considerable way to go in order to improve the quality of service delivery to positively impact people on probation and to ensure the safety of victims and the local community." - i.e. to do the job its supposed to be doing.
So surely we should conclude that "the leaders" and the "managers" have, in fact, failed miserably?
As the 'leaders' & 'managers' they have failed to ensure delivery of even a bare minimum of a service for their staff, those subject to probation supervision and victims.
But what's this great news?
"we are hopeful that the management structures in place will be able to drive improvements, helped by planned increases in Senior Probation Officers..."
1. the management structures in place have already proved they cannot drive a toy bus
2. "planned increases in SPOs" - from a workforce hamstrung by "high workloads, significant staff vacancies and staff that do not yet have the full depth and breadth of experience..."
Duplicitous nonsense, justin splinterpants
I suspect that many of the newer members of staff have little if any concept of the processes involved in sentencing.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be said that probation was the only agency involved in the criminal justice system from the point of arrest, ( there were probation staff located at some police stations,) to sentence termination, sometimes the death of a life sentence prisoner, and probation officers would transfer between posts regularly in order to ‘enhance their careers,’ or provide evidence of suitability for seniority.
Now, people seem to work in silos focussing upon one aspect of the job and without an over view of the whole system. An order appears on the SPOs desk and is allocated. For many, that is where the journey begins. The focus is solely upon OAsys and risk assessment with little or no resources deployed for intervention and risk management. Bureaucracy is everything and people, whichever side of the desk, count for nothing.
The HMI report into the St.Helens and Knowsley PDU published today states that, ‘The staff group was made up of 87 percent females, however 100% of the caseload of the PDU is male due to the sub-regional arrangements for the management of women in the region (p17).
ReplyDeleteThis has been the case for decades and has been commented upon regularly, usually generating a hostile response.
What might the outcome be if gender roles were reversed?
Merseyside has a policy of women only working with women - regardless of what women on probation want. Do they intend to offer the same facility to men under supervision.
what do you think?
On that basis the same choice should be offered to offenders that are male, disabled, BAME, LBGTQ, etc.
DeleteI do feel for male staff and offenders in a service awash with females.
@14:06 Casual misogyny is challenged, but quite frankly that's the bare minimum I would expect from anyone who aspires to work in an anti-discriminatory and anti-opressive way.
Delete20:59's use of the phrase "awash with" is concerning - not too many steps from recent Tory racist rhetoric about asylum seekers, for example.
It’s an accurate term. There is a disproportionately amount of females in the Probation Service.
Delete“Awash: having an amount of something that is very large or larger than necessary or wanted:”
Proportionate representation and fair policies is not “casual misogyny”. You view evidences why more males are needed.
"larger than necessary or wanted".
DeleteWhich of your female colleagues are unnecessary or wanted, and can I be there when you tell them?
20:59 could have written "a service that is disproportionately female" but they chose a loaded term. That choice represents a problem.
The fact you’ve labelled yourself as “Male 40-something ex-PO” represent a problem, but hey who’s counting !
DeleteYes there is a very disproportionate amount of females in the service which is an unnecessary and unwanted situation even according to HMIP. What is wanted is fairer representation and this could have been achieved a long time ago. Try to understand that.
I chose this label because every time I challenge the casual misogyny in the comments, the responses assume I'm young and female! Obviously I am young at heart, just not in years...
DeleteThere is a big difference between legitimate debate about the staff of a public service being unrepresentative of their client group, and much of the toxic commentary that appears here - which frequently comes close to saying that young women are not as capable at doing the job.
In terms of "fairer representation" I would be interested in knowing how (or if) the ratio of male to female *applicants* differs from the ratio of those who are successful. If there is little or no difference, then surely it is less an issue of "fairness" than in understanding why the job may be less attractive to men. In which case, I wonder whether those who argue for more men to work as probation officers are the same as those who complain about campaigns to encourage ex-Forces and ex-police staff to join.
Police and Army, both racist organisations. If that’s the answer to recruiting males that’s a problem in itself.
DeleteI don’t think women are any more or less capable than men at being a PO. Or men any more or les capable than females. Male POs are in the minority though and that can’t be a good place to be.
I cringe every time I hear a female SPO or PO saying a particular male offenders needs to be allocated / reallocated to a male PO because they’re a little bit difficult.
I also cringe every time I hear a female PO saying “I can’t stand working with women offenders”. Something a male PO couldn’t say.
I cringe every time I hear a female PO chanting “the men”, “those men”, “typical men”.
I can’t comment much on what men do as there aren’t any!
Numbers for allocations will just not add up
ReplyDeleteMale PQUIP in our area are not allowed to supervise females so what if females can’t supervise males the numbers will never add up
ReplyDeleteHMI Inspectorate report for Knowsley and Saint Helens as referenced above makes grim reading. Multiple problems exist and once again the Probation Inspectorate has fudged the report, although the overall assessment s "Inadequate" the actual score is 2 out of 24 a score of less than 9 percent. When will the Inspectorate conclude as Dame Glenys Stacey did that Probation is irredeemably flawed and insist that the current Government fix it? The Inspectorate seems content to go on churning out reports that are utterly damning but then take no action. The Inspectorate needs to be a lot braver and risk telling truth to power.
ReplyDeleteThe report for North Liverpool is only slightly better but we haven’t seen any of the excellent leaders fall on their swords.
ReplyDeleteThe same ‘leaders,’ would be first in the queue to penalise a supervising officer unfortunate enough to be holding the hand grenade when there is an SFO but they take no responsibility for their own failings, specifically, their refusal to condemn the planned decline of the organisation, instead preferring to pocket the money and climb the greasy pole.
06:39, Genuine thanks for the comment, I’m not clear about what it is you are saying. please expand on your views/opinions and open the debate.
ReplyDeleteDebate?
DeleteI cant remember reading an inspectorate report from any region in the last couple of years that didn't find the service to be inadequate.
ReplyDeleteHow much longer can inadequate be the expected outcome of an inspection before fundamental changes are made to the way services are delivered?
Is it,’casual misogyny,’ when the inspectorate have specifically referred to the disparity in gender between those supervising and those being supervised?
ReplyDeleteThis shift in staffing ratios has been ongoing since the mid 90s and was vociferously supported by those who claimed the supported equal opportunities.
Policies of the day saw a huge influx of female recruits, and for whatever reason(s) a massive decline in the number of males entering the service.
There is a multitude of research and literature from a variety of sources on the subject of the feminisation of the workforce and how this can have an impact upon terms and conditions.
I would venture that in terms of the probation service, this has
co-incided with a deterioration in real term pay and a rise in the,
‘Culture of managerialism,’ although equally, I realise that there are a number of other factors to be considered.
In my view, discussion and debate are legitimate, particularly given supposed commitments by the organisation to be representative of the society we live in.
In my experience, society is not 87% female and according to the inspectorate, nor are caseloads in this PDU.
Interesting when you compare this to the gender of who actually imposes the sentences we work with, where women represent 35% of all court judges ( 2022 which is 11% higher than 2014). Oh dear are women rising up there too? Are we getting into a strange debate here? Is the root cause of this debate the research about using a trauma informed approach when we work with females being more effective? If the trauma has been due to males perpetrating this, could that be the reason for offering a female officer? Can this not stand on its merits? Now if male service users would benefit from a male officer should some evidence be produced to support this?
DeleteIf the research really held water then black offenders would have the choice of a black officer, males choice of a male, etc.
DeleteI have had a flick through the most recent PDU inspections, and found only one that was highly rated. The rest were either inadequate or needed improvement. One of the London Inspections scored 0. Which by any standards is rather poor. Despite this the report didn’t recommend sacking the entire management team which is a surprise really. The evidence is rather damning. So for those contributors who just think the older staff are moaning for the sake of it theres your answer. The service performance has deteriorated markedly. And astonishing as it sounds one of the main areas of concern is risk assessments. Mind you this may also be the result of the dreadful training which presents assessment as a fairly narrow process divorced from reality. Having said that recent research appears to suggest that we don’t have free will and we don’t make conscious choices. So that may leave the history of probation one of error and foolishness.
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, the managers that ran probation into the ground are now telling everyone else how to do the job.
DeleteThe main presentation from the June London Probation managers event was
“How do we support our staff to complete their public protection duties”. @LDNProbation 19/06/2023
Everything they blamed on probation workers followed up by
“Relationships and what supports wellbeing in the workplace”.
We can all give a big thanks to HMIP Probation for not stating how shit the management teams really are.
If people just followed instructions, set by the top tables, we would be okay! Like in the army. Follow instructions. Move forward as one!
Deletehttps://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66033331.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16882163212961&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fuk-politics-66033331
DeleteA place for everyone, and everyone in their place. Elegant argument made here for why the probation service must be removed from the clutches of the civil service.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66033331?fbclid=IwAR24eszm7lwt98UvrJkgWmqteBsjbsJoRgYPfjXVWSVDIRGLNtvis5GS000
Napo, Unison, GMB now seeking a 12% pay deal. Less then a year after the shoehorned probation into an abysmal 3% pay deal which unions declined to advise members on.
ReplyDelete“UNISON would normally provide a recommendation to members as to how to vote in relation to a pay offer. However, on this occasion UNISON’s Probation Service Committee has not been able to arrive at such a recommendation.”
http://probationmatters.blogspot.com/2022/09/pay-offer-2022.html?m=1
“However, while the ballot returned an overall ‘yes’ vote, over a third of members in my union Unison, and a similar number in Napo, voted to reject the offer, indicating a willingness to take industrial action. This result, while disappointing, shows what could have been achieved had the unions recommended a reject vote, and built a joint campaign to demand the real pay rise we deserve.”
https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/102710/05-10-2022/probation-workers-accept-real-terms-pay-cut-following-absence-of-union-lead/
21:15, as a male who qualified as a social worker and worked as a probation officer, I was trained to use therapeutic interventions and did so at a time when we worked with both male and female service users.
ReplyDeleteSome people benefitted from my/our intervention and others didn’t. I think the reason for mixed results lies with the person who is being therapied rather than the gender of the therapist.
I think we are in danger of being linked into an ideology that none of us would support if we are arguing that ‘A’ man is an abuser, therefore all men are abusers.(such claims are likely to be voiced again in months to come and while having no validity, are seized upon for malicious purposes)
In my opinion, what we should be discussing is what the role of the service is in working with damaged people. Are we merely a signposting agency, and if so, anybody can hand out a leaflet and give directions, or are we intervening in a way that improves people’s lives and gives evidence based positive outcomes.
The bottom line is that the probation service has lost its identity and purpose and this is what is being reflected in inspections.
Until such time as there is a discussion focussed upon ,’this is what we believe, ( including the now banned notion of rehabilitation, )this is what we do,’ ( form positive relationships with people on the margins) we will continue to flounder. Alternatively, we can simply accept that our role is to manage risk and accept the brickbats when we fail to do so.
I’m 21:15 and do not feel the need to say whether I am male or female, when I trained or the type of qualification I have as none of that makes my points less or more valid. Read the policy guidance on working with females, it in no way seeks to negate male experience, it does NOT assert all males are abusers and it simply looks at effective practice for working with females we supervise. Sometimes research develops practice over time and none of us should be fixed to the time we trained surely?
DeleteShouldn’t matter if you’re male, female, neutral or both. Nobody is opposing research on effective practice for working with females, but where’s the follow up to see if it works. Sometimes research develops practice, but sometimes we over focus on one area of research and forget all the other similar areas that have been ignored.
DeleteThe Lammy report was a research. Where’s the implementation of that. Male offenders, black offenders, where’s the research on whether they need a choice of probation officer.
Hopefully there will be follow up to see if the strategy works but it is very recent so perhaps we do need to wait and see?
DeleteIt’s not recent. It followed the Corston Report.
DeleteThe Corston Report is a review of vulnerable women in the criminal justice system carried out in 2006 by Baroness Jean Corston.
Yes it was recent, published January 2023 !
DeleteTheres a special debate being called in Parliament on Tuesday which might throw up some interesting issues regarding HMPPS.
ReplyDeleteThe prison population is just about to exceed breaking point. Theres been calls for the early release of prisoners to ease the situation. New prisons cant be opened until 2027, and the prison governors association have threatened legal action if the MoJ attempt to force prisons to exceed their agreed capacity.
The debate will obviously involve discussion about probation as releasing more prisoners will impact on probation, and recalls to prison by probation obviously impacts on the prison population.
With everything within the CJS in such a chaotic and dire state it might be interesting to see what some of the solutions proposed might be whilst still having to project the 'tough on crime' stance.
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/102/justice-committee/news/196138/capacity-crisis-in-jails-leads-to-special-parliamentary-debate/
'Getafix
Some excellent comments and pointers on the blog over the last couple of days however, the thread began with an analysis of the history and future of the PSR, once the mainstay of probation practice.
ReplyDeleteI think it was Jim himself who commented that nobody is interested, and sad to say, I think he has been proved right.
Because most staff don't recall what a PSR was. Times have moved on that old practice long on the block now.
DeleteThey removed PSR’s from generic probation officer roles a few years back so they can give generic POs more cases. Just like they removed all the longer term custody cases to give more cases to decreasing community POs. Then they change the guidelines anytime Courts don’t have enough POs, forcing generic POs to complete PSRs. Just as they’re constantly changing OMiC rules to squeeze more capacity out of community POs. Can’t have it both ways and evidence of bad management overall by probation senior management teams. Many POs have never done PSR’s and nobody has time to. No surprise nobody is interested.
Delete"Because most staff don't recall what a PSR was. Times have moved on that old practice long on the block now."
Deletethe noms/nps/hmpps strategy writ large... impose policy & change, get shot of those who criticise/question, replace them with a compliant new workforce & voila... "we are where we are, it is what it is, time to look forwards, one hmpps, etc, etc"
"Because most staff don't recall what a PSR was. Times have moved on that old practice long on the block now."
DeleteLots of old practices are now long gone, and that's why the service isn't fit for purpose anymore.
Maybe those that applaud the stripping out of the old practices would do well to remember what's happening under their watch.
https://www.channel4.com/news/the-probation-service-is-a-broken-system-says-former-chief-crown-prosecutor-for-north-west-england
The probation officers are fit for purpose. The managers and senior managers at the helm are not.
Deletea blast from the past should be winging its way to JB via email, hopefully he can decipher my poor tech skills
DeleteOf course it is fit for the purpose it serves today not all this reflection . Whining blaming . It was let go by the staff so now it's a new structure new role. You are not asked to do the old jobs so why is anyone complaining the employer sets the work..
Delete"a blast from the past should be winging its way to JB via email, hopefully he can decipher my poor tech skills"
DeleteReceived with thanks - which is quite extraordinary due to my only recently re-discovering this email account jimbrownblogger@gmail.com not viewed since 2015 and as a result of responding to massive problems with Virgin email and the main account jimbrown51@virginmedia.com! Apologies go to anyone who never heard back from me.
Any Probation officer jobs going in the North East? I can't afford to live in South anymore due to changing circumstances and cost of living. Have looked online but can't see anything. If anyone hears of anything please let me know. Thanks
ReplyDeleteContact regions direct or wait for them to advertise vacancies https://justicejobs.tal.net/candidate/jobboard/vacancy/3/adv/
DeleteI wouldn’t come to the north east probation!! The north east, yes deffo great people, great communities, great environment but NE probation is truly shit and even scary. Try NE YOS
ReplyDeleteWell I don't have much choice and it's shit everywhere now and as you say it a great place to live!
DeleteYeah same rubbish money , poor conditions and no prospects
ReplyDeleteWelcome to North probation
https://www.aol.co.uk/lord-chancellor-asks-parole-board-172635510.html
ReplyDeleteLord Chancellor Alex Chalk has asked the Parole Board to reconsider its decision to allow double child killer Colin Pitchfork to be released from prison, the Ministry of Justice said.
Inspector on sky news today Justin Russell says nothing that make any change. Just one thing this time they might listen to change for dv work .
ReplyDelete