In 2022 the dreaded phone call came from my manager. They told me that a difficult year was about to get a lot worse because HMIP were coming to my PDU. The relief from my colleagues that their PDUs had not been selected was enormous.
The inspection could not have come at a worse time, the workload was increasing and the staff levels decreasing. the enormous amount of work to prepare for the inspection, on top of all the other work was ridiculous. Unfortunately the final case sample was mainly cases held by very inexperienced PSOs, who had been thrown in the deep end to sink or swim. Consequently very few cases in the sample were from experienced (and excellent) practitioners.
We had some alert cases but the whole inspection actually went quite well. As with Ruth Perry there was a session where questions were fired at me by the Inspectors to answer on the spot. That did not go well because many of the questions were about matters outside of the PDU or issues they had only just uncovered that I wasn’t aware of and I felt I was being tripped up and I was really on the back foot. Information got back to the Head of Operations who started to question my responses to the questions - why did you say that? Go back and correct it!
The feedback session at the end went fairly well, and I went away feeling that we would get a good outcome, particularly under the circumstances of rising workloads. Like Ruth Perry I counted down the days to receiving the report, which was delayed. I finally got the draft for corrections and I felt like the bottom fell out of my world. The outcome was terrible. I couldn’t think how I could face the team to tell people that are working so hard that we had been found to be so poor. Would people leave when they saw it, why would people stay?
Personally I felt humiliated, the report included some personal criticism of me, and I couldn’t see how I could have any credibility to carry on with my job and look people in the eye. I wondered if I would get sacked or moved.
I had to hold on to the findings in the report for weeks before I was able to share it with the managers and then have to face the PDU. They were really disappointed and couldn’t understand that you put everything into the job, work huge amounts of overtime, help people get back on track but it’s not enough.
After the initial horror came the work to develop an improvement plan, and the constant sense that I was being punished with extra work because everything was my fault.
I appreciate people reading this might think we get paid to shoulder this sort of thing, but PDU heads are people, and these inspections are traumatic and devastating in the main. We have to put on a show of holding on to the positives and try and move forward, but the tremendous blow after 30+ years in the service nearly broke me, and I know I’m not the only one.
--oo00oo--
I am trying desperately to not feel a certain amount of schadenfreude reading this and remembering my first ever Oasys report that I couldn't believe was about me. making life harder for people doesn't help them so I'll muster what sympathy I can for you.
ReplyDeletesox
Thank you for posting this and for your honesty. Of course we are all human and no amount of pay makes up for this brutal treatment. I hope you are ok and not internalising all the criticism. My own memory of being grilled by an inspector as a PO was not positive. The case that was chosen was someone I had worked really hard with. I honestly felt if this case was not held up as a good example there was no hope for the service. Despite this he was critical of apparent safeguarding and somehow thought I should refer in a partner to adult services when I had no information regarding her or her whereabouts other than being out of area. I personally left feeling disrespected and humiliated by someone who I felt had no understanding of the challenges of the job and the stresses we are under. These inspectors have a duty of care. They talk about safeguarding but clearly they don't think.it applies to them and that they are exempt or some kind if God! They need to be brought to task.
ReplyDeleteFrom BBC website:-
ReplyDeleteAt 2:15am on Christmas morning last year, Ruth Perry woke and wrote down her thoughts while her two teenage daughters and husband slept.
"I.N.A.D.E.Q.U.A.T.E keeps flashing behind my eyes."
She had been head teacher at Caversham Primary School, in Reading, for 13 years - the school had always been judged as "outstanding".
The previous month, inspectors had visited, and Ruth knew they were going to downgrade her school to the lowest rating, "inadequate".
That Christmas, Ruth's thoughts kept returning to a meeting she'd had on the first morning of the school inspection, when the lead inspector had raised concerns about record keeping and staff checks intended to keep children safe.
If Ofsted decided the school wasn't safeguarding pupils effectively, it would automatically be deemed "inadequate" - no matter how good the education it provided. Ruth knew Caversham Primary would then be taken over by an academy trust, putting her job at risk.
After the meeting, Ruth's colleagues say she was distraught and unable to speak coherently. From that moment on, her family say she became increasingly distressed.
"I'd never seen Ruth so deflated," says Jon, her husband of 21 years. "She said she felt powerless." In the weeks after the inspection, Ruth wrote a series of notes, later found by her family, revealing the turmoil she was going through.
She was "devastated" and "heartbroken". "I do not believe any child has been harmed because I have been negligent in my duties," she wrote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-67612233
YOU ARE paid to take this responsibility ( range £60k to £75k). This inspection was ON YOUR WATCH and I’m shocked you align yourself with Ruth Perry who took her own life, shame on you for that. I am reassured if the inspectors held you accountable yet clearly you are still in post and you don’t mention capability process for you only I suspect an improvement plan for your area which you would impose on the practitioners. Why are inexperienced PSOs placed in such a position “sink or swim” this is ON YOUR WATCH! You are a senior manager and I’m relieved if the Inspectors do their job. I’ve worked on an Inspection recently and simply cannot reconcile the picture you paint.
ReplyDeleteI’m no supporter of probation ‘senior managers’. However there are some very good Heads of PDUs, aka ACOs. There are not many mind, but some. It must be a difficult job being head of a bunch of probation offices knowing there are crisis and practices that cannot be fixed. Meanwhile all staff above and below are demanding they are fixed by you.
ReplyDeleteThere is no mention in the lead article of what steps the author took to ‘push back.’ Did s/he take the matter up with their line manager? Did they point out that there were insufficient resources to meet demand? Did they suggest suspending some or all of the demands on frontline staff, or did they roll over when told JFDI.
ReplyDeleteI have reminded myself that these people call themselves leaders!
Sorry but the sound of a sobbing toddler comes to mind... those holding such positions are paid well but, more importantly, are presumably in those positions because they have been selected to be there through a process that says they are capable of being there.
ReplyDelete"They told me that a difficult year was about to get a lot worse because HMIP were coming to my PDU." - Why so concerned? Your job is to make the PDU work, not hide shit until an inspection lifts the rug. That's not a good sign from the off...
"mainly cases held by very inexperienced PSOs, who had been thrown in the deep end to sink or swim." - Your call, your responsibility, you did the throwing, your shit to deal with the drowned bodies...
"I couldn’t think how I could face the team to tell people that are working so hard that we had been found to be so poor." - Surely you would have had some idea of what to expect if it was such a poor outcome? HMIP don't make shit up; they dig about, they can be harsh but they don't bring a barrowload of shit with them (the hotel they stayed in would have complained).
"Information got back to the Head of Operations who started to question my responses to the questions..." - now that sounds like s/he's the real source of concern; maybe the true source of the crock of shit you had to swallow? Or why your brand new pso's were floundering with cases?
And this all seems to prove to me exactly why managerialism is NOT a probation-friendly concept, why the probation task cannot be completed whilst in the airless realm of hmpps... people are in roles they cannot fulfil for all sorts of reasons (incompetence? inexperience? lack of interest?) but mostly because of the downward pressure in the silo of shit that progressively crushes the life out of everyone EXCEPT those sitting on the top in the sunshine exchanging recipes & wine lists, sharing anecdotes of glitzy events & brushes with A-listers, debating whether its a Polestar or a Tesla in-between issuing demands & barking commands.
So many senior managers send down the message ‘ just suck it up’ …….karma can be a bitch eh?
ReplyDeleteIs there a concerted effort to push experienced frontline staff, in lemming like fashion towards the labour exchange? I say this, as so many now appear to be so disgruntled and disillusioned and leaving without any real attempt to stem, that in any commercial environment this would appear foolhardy, particularly as newer staff are already leaving in their droves! Retention is a buzz word at the minute, what does that actually mean- is it quantitative or qualitative? I suspect the former. Could it just be just my PDU? Whatever spreadsheet matrix is used, there’s very little in terms of any human reassurance- quite the contrary, “If you want to leave, just go, I’m not stopping anybody - but it’s no better anywhere else.” I have the view that this cold culture is prevalent more now than ever before; with occasional and timely platitudes/sound bites in an attempt to contradict, which reek of insincerity to the majority. Data and spreadsheets being used to JUDGE both staff and those whom offend in equal measure in such BINARY fashion, where when dealing with people and staff the context they are in, their journey to get here, we have to quite rightly apply due consideration and make appropriate allowances of many factors, which rather than binary makes people quite GREY - THIS APPLIES TO STAFF TOO
ReplyDeleteWhat this PDU Head failed to mention is that an improvement plan means the workers under the PDU Head (particularly the Offender Managers) will get crushed by all the extra shit thrown at them.
ReplyDelete