We Reap What We Sow

This blog recently:-

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.

*****
I 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.

*****
They 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.

*****
"Because most staff don't recall what a PSR was. Times have moved on that old practice long on the block now." The 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." Lots 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.

--oo00oo--

HMI Justin Russell today:-

Too many at risk of domestic abuse by people on probation, HM Inspectorate of Probation finds

HM Inspectorate of Probation has published a report inspecting the work undertaken and progress made, by the Probation Service, to reduce domestic abuse and protect victims. The Inspectorate last looked at this area of probation practice in 2018.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “Very concerningly, despite some positive developments in policy, little appears to have improved in practice, and in some respects, things have deteriorated. This is unacceptable and is leaving far too many potential victims at risk of domestic abuse.”

The inspection found:

• 30 per cent of people on probation are current or previous perpetrators of domestic abuse
• only 28 per cent of the of people on probation had been sufficiently assessed for any risks of further domestic abuse
• 45 per cent of our case sample should have had access to an intervention but had not.

Only 17 out of the 60 cases we looked at for this report had a sufficiently clear and thorough analysis of the risk of domestic abuse the person on probation might pose. We identified failures to analyse previous domestically abusive behaviours or patterns of behaviour. In some cases, there was a failure to recognise the offending as domestic abuse, mainly where the victim was a family member rather than an intimate partner.

Mr Russell continued: “Almost 75,000 people supervised by the Probation Service in or out of custody, have been identified as a current or former domestic abuse perpetrator, so it is essential that their risk is properly assessed and managed. Over the years, including in a number of very high-profile cases, we have flagged our concerns about the urgent need for the Probation Service to complete domestic abuse enquiries with the police before sentencing, or when undertaking initial risk assessments”.

“Sadly, we are still finding this is not happening in too many cases and even enquiries with local councils to ensure child safeguarding are not being completed. I have made many previous recommendations on how probation services should develop this practice, so it’s very disappointing not to see more improvement.”

A key finding of this report was that we found too many cases (45 per cent) where people on probation were assessed as needing an intervention related to domestic abuse – such as programmes to tackle abusive behaviour or attitudes and to encourage healthy relationships – but these weren’t being delivered. An additional issue is that there is insufficient national information and data about how many of these referrals are being made or completed, so the performance of these programmes cannot be evaluated.

Other factors included probation staff workloads. We found probation practitioners to be highly committed to improving this area of their service, but they have too many cases to manage to complete meaningful work. On too many occasions, we found contact with a person on probation at risk of further domestic violence was minimal and done via phone calls rather than by face-to-face meetings. However, where probation practitioners work with smaller caseloads, the quality of domestic abuse work is dramatically improved.

We also found that recent changes in legislation, such as the recognition of children affected by domestic abuse as victims in their own right, have not been incorporated into probation practice. And the sharing of information between services – probation, police and social services – was inconsistent at best.

Mr Russell concluded: “I had hoped that more progress would have been made to address the very serious need to improve probation practice around the risks of domestic abuse. Unfortunately, there has only been minimal positive change. I recognise that many in the Probation Service are doing all they can, with limited resource, to manage cases adequately, but there is a long way still to go. I call on HMPPS to take heed of our recommendations and address the vital improvements that are needed to assist services in their aims, to reduce the risk of further domestic abuse by people on probation for the protection of victims and potential victims.”

--oo00oo--

The full report can be found here. The following is from the Executive Summary:- 

Assessment and planning 

Many of our findings in this inspection mirror those in our recent core inspection programme. Too often, we found poor-quality risk assessments concerning domestic abuse that missed out on essential details or failed to provide a sufficient analysis of the case. Not enough use was made of information from other agencies or previous probation assessments, even though over half of our sample had been identified as being at risk of domestic abuse for more than four years. We concluded that only 28 per cent of assessments in our sample provided a sufficiently clear and thorough analysis of the risks of domestic abuse. While the volume of completions of the SARA has increased, they often lacked sufficient analysis to provide a meaningful assessment of the likelihood of further domestically abusive behaviour. Probation practitioners do not value the tool, and as it sits outside the primary offender assessment system (OASys) risk and needs assessment tool, it is not seen as a priority. Yet, the SARA is a key determining factor in access to domestic abuse interventions; if not completed accurately, it can lead to inappropriate intervention referrals. 

Pre-release work to address domestic abuse issues was only sufficient in half of the licence cases we inspected. In two-thirds of cases, there were appropriate licence conditions in place to manage the risks of domestic abuse. In almost three-quarters of cases where it was necessary, planning set out restrictions and measures to protect victims, such as restraining orders; however, constructive activities to address domestic abuse were included less often. Contingency planning was sufficient in less than half of the cases we inspected. Overall, we concluded that planning sufficiently addressed the risks of domestic abuse in only 37 per cent of cases. 

High-quality sentence management relies on effective information sharing with other agencies, such as the police and children’s social care services. Unfortunately, in too many cases where it was necessary, there had not been appropriate information sharing with other agencies involved in managing the risks of domestic abuse. Nevertheless, some probation areas have developed impressive arrangements with local forces, allowing them to receive daily information about incidents or arrests for people on their caseload, which allowed practitioners to make informed decisions about case management. 

Sentence and intervention delivery 

Some PDUs were experiencing significant staffing shortages; in one PDU, they had only half of the practitioner-grade staff they should have had. As a result, there were nationally agreed arrangements in place to manage resources, but these were having a negative impact on the quality of sentence management. For example, people on probation were seen too infrequently, and too many appointments offered no meaningful intervention to reduce the risks of further domestic abuse. Overall, we concluded that the implementation and delivery of sentences managed the risks of domestic abuse effectively in only 27 per cent of the cases we inspected. Too few enquiries had been made with children’s social care services and the police to inform sentence management, leading to gaps in the practitioner’s knowledge about the risks in the case. In cases where information had been gathered, it was not analysed or used sufficiently to inform case management. Many probation practitioners knew little about specialist domestic abuse services that could support them in their work. Reviews of cases often failed to address changes in factors linked to domestic abuse or make adjustments to ongoing work. In over half of the cases where it was necessary, information had not been gathered from other agencies to inform reviewing. Overall, we assessed that reviewing focused adequately on the risks of domestic abuse in only 23 per cent of cases. 

Notwithstanding our concerns about the general quality of practice concerning domestic abuse, we found some examples of impressive practice. Where specialist multidisciplinary teams were in place, this enabled practitioners to work collaboratively with police and other services. Practitioners in these teams demonstrated a better understanding of the complexity of domestic abuse. As they usually had smaller caseloads, they had the time to work more effectively with people on probation. Joint work with other specialist organisations, such as through the Drive project, also led to effective work to reduce domestic abuse. 

Practice around making disclosures about domestic abuse to new partners when a perpetrator started a new relationship varied significantly, and in some cases we assessed it to increase risks. Where decisions were not made as part of multi-agency meetings or through the domestic violence disclosure scheme (often called Clare’s Law), we found no evidence of a systematic approach to considering the risks around disclosures. The national guidance in place at the time was insufficient to support decisions or delivery adequately. Practitioners expressed a range of views about disclosure, with some stating clearly that they did not feel it was part of their role, and others telling us that they gave information routinely to new partners of perpetrators without consulting managers about the content of this information or how it could be shared safely. When probation staff made disclosures, we found little evidence that consideration had been given to the potential vulnerabilities of the person receiving the information, nor any effort to engage the services that might support them. 

Opportunities to support victims are sometimes missed through late referrals to the DASO service or failure to liaise with independent domestic violence advisers (IDVAs). The DASO service offers valuable support to victims and partners of people on probation completing BBR and other domestic abuse groupwork interventions. The guidance manuals for the service are being reviewed currently as they are significantly out of date, and this has resulted in variable delivery of the scheme across the country and a need for a more consistent approach to be put into place.