Saturday, 27 April 2024

Guest Blog 97

Probation re-set, revise and regret

I reset my email password today, that’s something you re-set. You do not re-set an entire organisation with over 100 years of history. It’s been discussed in the shadows for some time now, but the dye has been cast, the touch paper is lit. They’re calling it Probation Re-set, the whisper has become a reality though we do not need a “re-set”, we need resources, independence and staff.

First they “transformed” probation, which really meant dismantling and privatising. Then they “unified” probation which meant joining two disjointed organisations and papering over the mistakes of the past decade. Now the wallpaper is peeling off the walls and HMPpS is using probation to absorb the smoke of the prison overcrowding crisis, blaming probation for recalls and deluding us to believe it needs to be “re-set”. My question is re-set to what exactly?

Probation is not being re-set to its gold medal award status of over a decade ago, it is not being re-set and returned to its social work roots of advise, assist and befriend, it is not being re-set and detached from the hangman’s noose of the civil and prison services. The “re-set” will scrap PSS and terminate all supervised cases at the two thirds point, excepting those registered as MAPPA and child protection cases. All sentence management contact under PSS will cease. All supervision appointments delivered by probation will cease in the final third (unless the exception criteria is met). Contact for People on Licence (PoLs?) will cease in the final third (unless exception criteria is met).

I remember when probation fought to provide supervisory support to those sentenced to under 12 months in custody. We didn’t expect this to arrive in the form of Post Sentence Supervision (PSS), which ramped up workloads and forced support onto many released prisoners that did not require it. Short term sentences should have been replaced by community sentences and PSS should have been legislated as optional for those released from short term prison sentences. If PSS needed to be mandatory then this should have been for the first three months and only extended by mutual agreement and without enforcement practices. Instead there has been a total u-turn and community supervision is being reduced, PSS to be suspended or scrapped altogether and supervised individuals no longer supported in the last third of their supervision. Have we missed the evidence-based research that told HMPpS experts those in the last third of a sentence do not need support, won’t commit crime, or pose a risk to themselves, victims and communities?

If probation is an agency of rehabilitation, enforcement, risk management and public protection then this surely will not be achieved by cancelling supervision and support when it could be needed most. Under “re-set” guidelines an individual could be sentenced to a few years in prison or put on probation, released 60 days in advance of the half way point, to then have their supervision suspended after 6 months on probation. Without dwelling on whether this is what the Courts and victims expect a sentence to be in actual fact, it does not sound very rehabilitative for those in need of help and support.

The rhetoric is that “we will reset probation so that practitioners prioritise early engagement at the point where offenders are most likely to breach their licence conditions. That will allow front-line staff to maximise supervision of the most serious offenders”. The first big elephant in the room is that once again probation is being twisted into an agency for supervising “serious offenders”. Many individuals do not start off as serious offenders and can still require support which will no longer be available. The support that could be needed for those released from prison 60 days early, homeless, penniless and addicted is to be reduced instead of improved. 

The second is that supervisory relationships do not always flourish until the very last periods of sentences. This will no longer happen when supervision is cancelled, not for good progress, but because the computer calculated that an individuals two thirds are up.

The cynical person I am thinks that Probation Re-set is part of the grand design of OneHMPpS which has consumed the Probation Service alive, warts and all. All HMPPS, Rees & Co needed to do was let go of their grip on the Probation Service and allow it to improve its staffing, practices and resources under a more localised control structure. Instead they’re continuing Grayling’s legacy by dismantling what’s left and ensuring probation is no longer a provider of probation services. Or we can be like the Emperor and believe the lies that Probation Re-set is going to save probation, at least for five minutes!

“The Emperor walked under his high canopy in the midst of the procession, through the streets of his capital. All the people standing by, and those at the windows, cried out, “Oh! How beautiful are our Emperor’s new clothes! “But he has nothing at all on!” at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was upset, for he knew that the people were right, and the Emperor walked on in his underwear.”

Probation Officer

115 comments:

  1. Alex Chalk, HoC, Tuesday 12 March 2024:

    "From April, we will reset probation so that practitioners prioritise early engagement at the point where offenders are most likely to breach their licence conditions. That will allow frontline staff to maximise supervision of the most serious offenders. Similarly, for those managed on community orders and suspended sentence orders, probation practitioners will ensure that intervention and engagement is prioritised towards the first two thirds of the sentence, as experience shows that that most effectively rehabilitates offenders."

    https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-03-12/debates/841C7297-E462-40E6-A461-66F25D55B1E3/PrisonsAndProbationForeignNationalOffenders

    https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/media/press-releases/2021/03/raceequalityinprobation/

    ReplyDelete
  2. How incompetent are the Senior Managers? Look what they’ve done to Probation. I wonder what the sentences know about this?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Prison senior managers now head most probation regions. Yes of course to they agreed “re set” probation to fix the problems HMPPS caused by twinning probation with prisons. We’ll be left with less of a probation service than we had in the first place. Probation now well and truly serves the prison system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think our guest blog over critical, it's not like lower risk offenders were getting much 'support' in PSS or in last third of sentence now or ever. However I am concerned that these exception criteria will require offenders to be assessed in order for them to be exempted, so who will do this and when will it be done? Thinking especially about releases at court of time served prisoners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they genuinely improved probation and staffing then there’d be increased support to all. Probation isn’t being “re-set”, it’s being reconfigured to manage the prison overcrowding crisis.

      Delete
    2. I disagree. That last third of sentence is why they’re doing really well, you see the changes. Best relationships I’ve had is in the last part of the sentence. Now we just get high risk problems.

      Delete
    3. ‘Re-set’ or ‘ reconfigured’ it’s immaterial ……. replace either with the word ‘ destroyed’ and that’s at least a true reflection of what our excellent leaders are doing to Probation.

      Delete
  5. From Twitter:-

    "This is just my opinion, the probation reset will be an unmitigated disaster as it is an ill considered knee jerk reaction to a problem that has been building for years."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are the licence conditions ended as well as the supervision? Or are those in last 3rd of licence still required to get permission to stay overnight somewhere or disclose a relationship? Can they no longer be recalled in the last 3rd?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Supervision is suspended. All other licence conditions remain. Cases remain on caseloads but do not have contact with a probation officer. If something changes then they arrange to see the probation officer.

      Delete
  7. New targets for ISPs on all cases must be completed BEFORE release. Mandatory prison visits to all. Re-setting probation to do more prison work. No plans to increase probation staff. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completed by whom pre release? POM or COM?

      Delete
    2. When do poms do anything !!!

      Delete
    3. They email COMs to ask when they will be visiting and completing re-release plans.....

      Delete
    4. Currently a “POM” and actually do quite a bit …… however with regards to pre release visits and ISP -you need to be building relationship before the people you’re going to be working with leave custody so it is right imo that this is a “COM” responsibility.
      Please can we have less of the COM vs POM it’s not helpful and makes us divided.

      Delete
    5. To POMs everything is a “COM” responsibility! That’s why we were never united mate!

      Delete
    6. POMs also receive more pay through the prison supplement despite doing objectively less work that those based in the community.

      Delete
    7. Well, if you're complaining that much, why not apply to work in the prisons then??? We reap what we sow.

      Delete
  8. It’s doesn’t make sense. probation are cancelling supervision but wouldn’t cancel all those thousands of unpaid work hours that couldn’t be completed in the covid lockdown.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Journalists
    Please investigate the newly directed “re-set of Probation” having particular regard to the expectation of sentencing, the rights of victims and the very specific direction of Senior Managers and the Minister responsible that in reality the final third of said sentences will in effect have no meaningful supervision in the community. You may wish to consider whether this re-set is a sleight of hand to hide the fact that Probation staffing has been depleted by both erosion of terms and conditions but also by resources from Probation having been directed into the Prisons to shore up that service up. So the once gold standard Probation Service having been decimated by the Tories (and vanity project of Chris Grayling) under the ill conceived Transforming Rehabilitation experiment, then having to be re-unified to address the resultant critical failings at huge human and financial cost now is in the position of being unable to deliver its fundamental raison d’etre ie statutory supervision for the full term expected by the Courts and victims. This really is deserving of good investigative journalism not least because of the sheer dishonesty of the “re-set”.
    PO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Napo, unison, GMB, probation institute why are you all silent on this?

      Delete
    2. Oh NAPO weren’t silent . On the contrary, as recently as March 13th (see ‘ECSL - NAPO’s position’, NAPO website) they were crowing about how the ‘reset’ is something they’ve valiantly achieved for us:

      ‘Napo also want to stress that the months long work we have been completing with HMPPS in relation to the joint union’s workload campaign – Operation Protect – should be about to produce the first results in terms of what HMPPS are referring to as a ‘Probation Reset’. Discussions remain ongoing and more information will follow from us very soon, but we want to make clear that, for us as well as our sister trade unions, this is only the beginning of the substantive workload relief we hope to see for workers in many roles across the Probation Service.’

      Delete
  10. String of failures by police, probation services and NHS trust allowed convicted rapist to enroll a… https://mol.im/a/13354509 via https://dailym.ai/android

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Such tragedies are now being reported almost weekly yet not a single senior head has rolled.

      https://www.lancs.live/news/uk-world-news/posed-danger-lone-women-yet-29067233

      A convicted rapist enrolled at a college where he befriended then murdered a vulnerable young woman after multiple failures by police, probation services and an NHS trust, an inquest has found.

      Probation and police also failed to properly act upon a number of warning signs, including Goold informing them he had had a 'small relapse' with alcohol and an admission that a woman he hoped to become 'intimate' with had decided not to pursue the relationship.

      But police and probation 'failed to exhibit any professional curiosity', probably due to their 'large workloads', wrote Ms Mutch.

      A Probation Service spokesperson said: "This was a horrific crime and we have apologised to Elizabeth McCann's loved ones for the failings in this case. We have taken steps to address the issues identified in the report and inquest, including improving information sharing and recruiting thousands more probation staff across the country."

      Delete
  11. So let me get this right. Every case I supervise on pss or in last two thirds of a licence or order will be suspended. I have no say in this. They stay on my caseload and I’ll be responsible for any enquiries from the police, social services or victims unit about them. If they want to go on holiday, move address or need to be recalled that’s my responsibility too. Then I’ll be allocated even more cases so I can spend all this time I’ve supposedly got back on doing ISPs and housing referrals and whatever else the prison tells me to do in advance of prisoners released 60 days early and that’ll be every case. Why am I a probation officer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why am I a probation officer. It's relatively easy work well paid . Not demanding on thought process but high admin. Low investment in work good conditions of service. Holiday annual days and expenses . Simple advancement to yes people who can and can't do. No pressure to leave or function well as the job is admin. Probation officer no longer exists so it's a well paid admin role.

      Delete
    2. 08:53 you’ve no idea. Being required to do the work of at least 2 - 3 people at any given time. Working in oppressive and discriminatory cultures. Constantly changing practices, guidelines and terms of services. Pay well below what it should be, and aways at risk of abuse by clients and thrown under the bus by your own managers.

      Delete
  12. What about PSS is that gone completely or will people still be issued with PSS licences but not supervised? Does drug testing and alcohol monitoring continue post 2/3 of main licence if it’s on the licence?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Its all about the prisons. None of this will work, the system is broken. All the focus of this inept crisis management is on the downstream end, presumeably in the hope that enough time can be bought for more prisons to be built. And then they will fill up. Pointless, inhumane and even if it could be called a system, its looking less and less like justice.

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www-chroniclelive-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/missed-opportunities-prison-probation-case-29043173.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17142927001845&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.chroniclelive.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fnorth-east-news%2Fmissed-opportunities-prison-probation-case-29043173

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An independent investigation was carried out by the Prisons & Probation Ombudsman (PPO) following MacGillivray's death.

      The PPO recommended that the Regional Probation Director North East should ensure that incidents of concern are explored and relevant intervention work is completed if required.

      They recommended that the Regional Probation Director North East should ensure that officers complete detailed handovers when a case is transferred and record details in the probation record; undertake a thorough review of records when given a new case.

      The PPO recommended that the Regional Probation Director North East should ensure COMs are offered support following the death of a service user on their caseload.


      FFS!! What extraordinary insight after the fact.

      Why not recommend that the Regional Probation Director ought to fucking resign as surely all of those recommendations form an existing part of the RPD's remit?

      Presumably no-one was "professionally curious" enough?

      Delete
    2. Bron Elphick - Regional Probation Director - North East - His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service

      Delete
  15. What about any reconviction during last third of order or suspended sentence order? The CO needs to be revoked and resentenced for original offences?The SSO needs to be activated or continue? What will the court's response be when informed there is no supervision? No breach for non attendance? Not very helpful for probation's reputation.

    ReplyDelete

  16. 20:39

    ''Napo, unison, GMB, probation institute why are you all silent on this?'''

    I can only think that they are complicit in all of this . Seriously can anyone offer anything else ??
    they can't be just ignoring it can they ???

    Always been member of a union all my working life, actively encouraged others to do so and done my stint as a rep but truly don't know why I am a member anymore, why do I pay my subs ?please a genuine question

    A union of people, we are stronger together , I was brought up on this yet our probation unions do nothing , less than nothing when was the last battle won ?? when was the last time the probation unions improved anything ??

    ReplyDelete
  17. Surely unfair to the NAPO mouse! How can a small, timid and fearful creature like the NAPO mouse be expected to stand up to the beastliness of the HMPpS animal?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I can't help but think that someone at the top has been revisiting old criminal justice acts searching for answers when I read about cutting supervision by a third.
    Those of a certain age will remember when prison sentences were broken down into thirds.
    One third to parole and possible release on supervision, or two thirds to automatic release with no supervision. The final third was remission which could be taken for any number of breaches of prison rules.
    It was a simple system, and a good system.
    It offered prisoners hope and the reward of early release for good behaviour and demonstrating a desire to change and lead a law abiding life after release, which was good for rehabilitation and good for the smooth running and wellbeing of the prison estate. Even those 'gaming' the system often stumbled upon a place of 'accidental rehabilitation' by trying to prove their worthiness for early release.
    Probation were winners too as they didn't have to supervise every released prisoner, and those that they did get were keen to demonstrate their early release was justified.
    The current system of subjecting every prison leaver to post sentence supervision is just a nonsense. Some just don't require it, and some just aren't suitable for probation.
    Infact if its all about monitoring and enforcement, then you don't really need a probation service at all. G4S or Serco could do that I'm sure, and do it cheaper too. Or maybe those on supervision could just report to the police station once a week to sign in?
    Probation has to be better. It has to be something more then just an enforcement agency to oversee the arse end of a prison sentence. It has to be able to do things with and for the people that walk through its doors other then sign post them somewhere else.
    Probation is about being in the community and it needs autonomy to operate in the community. Probation obviously needs a structure, but it also needs the freedom to work with the individual, and the freedom to be able to think outside of the box. It needs the freedom to take the occasional chance with the individual, not just process them along a rigid format thought up by someone that doesn't really understand.
    Probations future lays in its past, not in the constant tweeking and meddling and looking for something that hasn't been done before by those above at the steering wheel.
    I really have no idea of what if any benefit might come from reducing the supervision period by a third. It's bound to have some unintended consequences. But looking back might be a good place to look for solutions. After all it isn't too far in the past that the shitshow that is today's probation was considered a gold standard service.

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  19. https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27021252.amp?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17143078654809&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The debate around how long an offender should spend in jail and out on licence has been going for centuries. But when - and why - did the length of time prisoners serve in jail actually change?

      It is South Carolina in the 1990s. A parole applicant appears before the board. He shuffles into the room in leg irons with red and green lights ahead of him.

      Before he can open his mouth the board members hit switches igniting the red lights. For the time being, he is to remain behind bars.

      In the United States there are thousands of people serving life-without-parole sentences. Yet early release on parole has been a feature of the English penal system for many years.

      In 1948 it was decided prisoners should be released once they had served two thirds of their sentence. At this time there was no parole and they were released without being on licence.

      Then in 1967 the Criminal Justice Act introduced the Parole Board and prisoners had the possibility of parole between a third and two-thirds into their sentence.

      The board was the creation of two pressures coming together - a wish to find ways of reducing prison populations and a genuine belief in rehabilitation.

      "Those things in the 1960s were really important and in tune with the thinking of the time - that you could change the behaviour of an offender if you adopted the right approach," Stephen Shute, professor of criminal law and criminal justice at the University of Sussex, said.

      While there was a general view that supervision after leaving prison was a good idea, it seemed there were a number of problems with the system.

      This led to the Carlisle Committee being set up, which would go on to underpin the 1991 Criminal Justice Act.

      There was a recognition that not many people were actually getting out at the one third point, and they were tending to be realised half way through their sentence, or afterwards.

      "It was thought, wouldn't it be better to have a system which recognises the reality of the situation and doesn't raise the hopes of prisoners and their families unnecessarily," Prof Shute said.

      "The solution seemed to be to remove all the short term cases from the parole system and focus attention on the cases that matter, where there is likely to be a higher risk to the public."

      The 1991 Criminal Justice Act provided that any person serving a sentence of four years or more, would serve half of their period in custody - where previously it had been a third - and would then become eligible to apply for early release.

      Throughout the 1990s the debate about not keeping prisoners in jail unnecessarily versus a threat to the public continued.

      Another strand of thinking was that parole undermined 'honesty in sentencing', where a custodial term was announced in court that did not reflect the period of time the offender would actually serve in jail.

      But it was argued that if you took that idea to its extreme - that there should be no parole - then you are left with the problem of people whose risk is unpredictable, and when it is safe to release them.

      Delete
    2. And so in 2005 the provisions of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act were introduced.

      It said that any prisoners serving a determinate sentence would serve half of their sentence in custody, be released at the halfway point and remain on licence for the other half of the sentence.

      For those serving an indeterminate prison sentence, the court would set a minimum term of imprisonment before the offender can become eligible to be considered for parole.

      The Ministry of Justice said changes made to the system have seen sentences get longer and Nicola Padfield, reader in Criminal and Penal Justice at Cambridge University, argues half a sentence on parole is "not a soft touch".

      "It's not just come out and it is all over, some prisoners think it is tougher to serve their sentence in the community, on license, than it is in prison," she said.

      "Prisoners may be recalled either because of allegations of further offending, which may later be withdrawn, or for breaching conditions of their licence.

      "It is definitely not easy to lead a law-abiding life on release, particularly with little money and little support."

      Last year, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling announced proposals to end automatic release at the halfway point for those serving prison sentences for certain offences including the most serious child sex offences and terrorism-related offences.

      And so the debate around parole goes on.

      "These arguments come around and around and around...arguments made years ago are just given new clothes and it will ever be thus," Prof Shute concluded.

      Delete
    3. USA isn’t really a good role model. It’s commonplace to charge offenders for prison places and supervision appointments.

      Delete
    4. It's not promoting a USA model. Quite the contrary.

      Delete
    5. Yes it promotes the need for release and supervision. What I’m saying is the original reference to the USA model of no parole is what we’re ever moving closer to. We’re reducing supervision at a time when the government is talking about focus on serious offenders, longer sentences and building prisons. How long until they do away with probation supervision altogether, except that run by private services.

      Delete
  20. "...terminate all supervised cases at the two thirds point...supervision appointments delivered by probation will cease in the final third"
    With CO/SSO, it's RAR days that are terminated, you continue to see the person to the end. It's just those on licence that have contact suspended after the 2/3 point. Can't see how it's going to help at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “With CO/SSO, it's RAR days that are terminated, you continue to see the person to the end.”

      No RAR days means No supervision. They are not seen.

      Delete
    2. 07:04 read the small print on the orders.

      Delete
    3. So you're suggesting that someone with a 12 month CO and 5 days RAR would only be seen 5 times by you? Please tell me you're not?

      Delete
    4. “All supervision appointments delivered by probation will cease in the final third (unless the exception criteria is met).”

      Delete
  21. @08.22 No, RAR days doesn't mean no supervision, RAR is the intervention, sentence management appointments are separate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are mistaken my friend. The RAR enables planned office appointments. No RAR means no supervision. What you’re referring to is keeping in touch. This is all removed under the reset unless the exception criteria is met

      Delete
    2. I'm not mistaken - we can instruct a PoP to attend for a sentence management appointment (aka supervision appointment) and a RAR appointment. Two different things. The Court specifies the number of RAR days which are managed alongside supervision appointments.

      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-rehabilitation-activity-requirement-in-probation/rar-guidance

      Delete
    3. No RAR, no supervision. You do not understand the act. Also, the reset guidance says all RAR, PSS and supervision appointments delivered by probation will cease in the final third (unless the exception criteria is met). This is why the cases will be selected for you so you won’t wrongly apply a “there’s no RAR but they’ve still got supervision” clause.

      Delete
    4. And 14:29 stop reading guidance from 2019 and instead read the sentence guidelines and related circular on managing community sentences.

      Delete
    5. Well there mustn't be consistency across regions how orders are managed as we are told very clearly that RAR and sentence management are two different things. Look forward to seeing the reset guidance to get the definitive answer

      Delete
    6. Supervision absolutely continues post 2/3 on all COs AND SSOs. Only COM-delivered RAR days will cease - all other requirements remain in force - and while no, the orders don’t have ‘supervision requirements’ they do have this (this refers to COs but is similarly worded in the section of the legislation referring to SSOs:

      ‘Duty of offender to keep in touch with responsible officer
      …The offender must keep in touch with the responsible officer in accordance with any instructions the responsible officer may give the offender from time to time …This obligation is enforceable as if it were a community order requirement of the community order’ - or to put it a different way Supervision will continue as per the service-directed instructions given (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/17/group/THIRD/part/9/chapter/2/enacted)

      Delete
    7. No it needs to be “necessary and proportionate”. You cannot use the Keeping in Touch rule as standard to apply supervision to every order. I’m actually surprised a lot more breaches do not fail at Court due to probation enforcement of supervision appointments that were not justified in the first place as needing to be additional to the RAR.

      Delete
  22. How on earth are contributors understanding RAR and Supervision appointments so differently, are we delivering these in different ways depending on area? RAR is for delivering the specific objectives set in the sentence plan and should be recorded as RAR in delius. Planned office appointments and home visits should be recorded on delius as such and DO NOT count as RAR. Plenty on EQiP to explain this difference or read the Order. Legally once RAR have been completed we are allowed to issue supervision appointments as a separately measured contact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would hope we're not delivering these differently, if I'm reading the comments correctly it's worrying to think that people think RAR days are the total number of days that a PoP needs to be seen for the entirety of their order.

      Delete
    2. To make it easy for you. ALL SUPERVISED CASES on licences and court orders that do not meet the exception criteria will be terminated at the 2/3rd point.

      Delete
    3. 19:10 yup we all understood that thanks, the points being made still stand…….RAR days are different to supervision appointments and home visits……legally.

      Delete
    4. “Has nobody here bothered to read the guidance that has been issued. All RAR activity will cease and all supervision appointments will cease in the final third of orders (unless the exception criteria is met).”

      Delete
    5. NO case will be ‘terminated’ at the 2/3 point. For (non-exempt) license cases active ‘supervision’ - ie one to one appointments - will cease, but any and all other license requirements will remain in force. For (Non-exempt) SSOs and COs any COM-delivered RAR days will cease but, as with the licenses, any and all other requirements will remain in force. And before anyone says it, while no, there isn’t a ‘supervision requirement’ on SSOs and COs there IS a ‘Duty of offender to keep in touch with responsible officer’ in each case - specifically ‘The offender must keep in touch with the responsible officer in accordance with any instructions the responsible officer may give the offender from time to time’ and ‘This obligation is enforceable as if it were a requirement of the Community [or suspended sentence] Order’ - so post 2/3 point supervision will continue as per instructions given - instructions directed by the service.

      Delete
    6. Duty of offender to keep in touch Is also “subject to local variation”.

      Delete
    7. 19:10....those cases will not be "terminated"....although tey will not be seen but all the shit that goes on behind the scenes continues, without the workload management to reflect all that work....in fact it would be much easier if the cases were indeed terminated....that would be a reset....no supervision, no emails, no monitoring, no threat of SFO, no OASYS, no checking to see if someone attended things, no breaches or recall....sadly that's not the reset we've been handed

      Delete
  23. So do they meet the criteria of 'supervised cases'? Or has there been formal instruction that CO/SSOs are exempt from early termination?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All sentence management contact under PSS will cease.

      All supervision appointments delivered by probation will cease in the final third (unless the exception criteria is met).

      Contact for People on Licence (PoLs?) will cease in the final third (unless exception criteria is met).

      Delete
    2. So, does all of this mean that the SFO criteria is being changed so that the supervising PO/PSO is not subjected to the blame-game if/when something happens in the final third?

      Delete
  24. The more acronyms that's used, the more corporate you become, and you exclude the public because they haven't understood a word of what's said.
    How does that work for anybody? Prisoner? Probation worker? Or maybe the public?

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  25. Whilst supervision is suspended on the last 3rd of licence or PSS. If there is a drug testing condition you have to get people in to test them.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow, if anything demonstrates the utter mess Probation is in, read the above comments……there is a correct answer and yet clear dispute from contributors about what that is. It appears that some staff believe RAR days are the supervision appointments……unbelievable!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s an unnecessary discussion. This is what probation office do. They all get their knickers in a twist over points everyone else has moved on from. Has nobody here bothered to read the guidance that has been issued. All RAR activity will cease and all supervision appointments will cease in the final third of orders (unless the exception criteria is met).

      Delete
    2. I’ve read it and that’s NOT what it says. All it says in relation to (Non exempt) COs and SSO is that COM-delivered RAR activities will end , and all other requirements of the order will continue . I’ve referred to the legislation elsewhere in this discussion, but in short supervision will continue as per instruction given under the ‘offender’ obligation to keep in touch - which is enforceable in law ‘as if it were a requirement of the order’

      Delete
    3. The keep in touch element of orders is misunderstood and misused by probation.

      Delete
    4. 2218 is correct in that whether there is a RAR or not, the person can be instructed to attend....what the "excellent leaders" seem to have forgotten to clarify is whether this element of an Order is or is not being suspended, in addition to the suspension of RAR activity delivered directly by probation....it beggars belief that they have simply forgotten this element!!

      Delete
    5. But you won’t be “instructing to attend” if they’re in the last 2 two thirds of the order or licence. Not matter how you want to find little technical points it is that clear. You’re not making the decision. The decision will be made for you

      Delete
    6. It's not a question of 'little technical points'. You're quite right that the decision will be made for us - in fact it has been made for us and that decision is that supervision will continue . Nowhere in any of the information on the 'reset' does it say that supervision will end on SSOs or COs at 2/3. All it says is that COM-delivered RAR days or activities will end. It may not make a lot of sense , but then what does in any of this đŸ¤·‍♂️

      Delete
    7. Yes the guidance says all RAR activities and all supervised appointments will end at the two thirds point expect where the exception criteria is met. There are variations of regional guidance based on the all staff call.

      FYI. For community and suspended sentence orders it is the RAR that provides the appointments. Additional supervision appointments are extra under the keeping in touch rule. Not all regions or practitioners invoke this.

      FYI 2. Community and suspended sentence orders without requirements will not automatically be told to attend appointments to be told they don’t have to attend appointments. If they are already attending under the keeping in touch rule then this will cease too.

      Delete
    8. Exactly!! I highly suspect what they mean is that no contact at all should take place in the final third of the order....its just that they have failed to make this clear by simply stating, as you rightly point out, that COM delivered RAR days end.....so while there are non COM delivered RAR days being delivered they have added confusion by not clarifying whether sentence management appointments do or don't also continue during that time

      Delete
    9. No. RAR **and** supervision will cease at the 2/3 point. This has been made abundantly clear in all meetings on the subject including the recent meeting led by KTE.

      Delete
  27. I agree - complete mess. However I think the issue is that unless the court orders a specific supervision requirement - then legally outside RAR , individuals subject to a community order are required to attend appointments with their PO or PSO as instructed - so whilst RAR is obviously different - supervision as we currently know it is not the same requirement it was before TR. therefore probation reset means unless meeting exemption requirement no routine contact with probation in the last third.

    It’s all so depressing

    ReplyDelete
  28. No official guidance has been issued so wait until it is before speculating. It’s unhelpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is guidance. Missed the presentation?

      Delete
  29. this is all a bit nightmarish particularly as our SPO will be wanting an oasys review to justify any cases that are downgraded with regards to the reporting regime. This will push more staff out of the door.

    ReplyDelete
  30. https://insidetime.org/newsround/early-release-then-straight-back-to-jail/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Early release – then straight back to jail

      An early release scheme intended to tackle the capacity crisis in prisons has faced criticism after it emerged that some men are being released homeless and returning to jail days later.

      Under the End of Custody Supervised Licence (ECSL) scheme, announced by Justice Secretary Alex Chalk last October, men and women can be sent home 18 days before their release date. In March, the period was extended to up to 60 days. The policy applies only in the most crowded jails, and the Government will not say which prisons are running it or how many prisoners have been released.

      Now HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) has delivered its first verdict on how the scheme is operating. In a report on Peterborough men’s prison last month, inspectors wrote: “Despite them having no address to go to, managers had been obliged to release some men 18 days early under the ECSL scheme, only for some to return to prison before even their original release date had passed.”

      Pia Sinha, director of the Prison Reform Trust and a supporter of the ECSL, criticised the way it was being implemented. She said: “A prison system so narrowly focussed on just getting through the day encourages decision-making which provides short-term relief at the cost of longer-term pain. Releasing someone early with nowhere to live, only to see them return to prison days or weeks later, is a tragic example of this in action.”

      According to HMIP, 30 per cent of all men released from Peterborough have no home to go to. Responding, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Only lower-level offenders who are a matter of days before their automatic release date are being considered for the End of Custody Supervised Licence Scheme and if early release under the scheme presents a significantly greater risk the case can be escalated and blocked.

      “We know having a safe place to stay helps cut crime which is why we’re investing millions to provide temporary accommodation on release to offenders at risk of becoming homeless to stop them reoffending and keep the public safe.”

      Delete
    2. That's a lie. High risk offenders who prisons know will be NFA on release are being included in this early release scheme

      Delete
  31. Again, what an utter shambles Probation has become. Does not a single excellent leader understand that there is a significant level of staff confusion where there should be absolute clarity? Is this another case of ‘don’t ask the question so we don’t have to find an answer’. Surely our excellent leaders have a duty to maintain the confidence of the sentencers, they really haven’t even the confidence of the staff! Hang on though, they do get praise from the Inspectors so that’s alright. Omnishambles v2

    ReplyDelete
  32. What must the strong & excellent leaders make of this wankfest of confusion over what is "the job". Regional directors instructed by a coroner to do what their job description says they should be doing anyway; staff across the country squabbling about what their job is or isn't; probation unions seemingly dead & buried; hmip issuing colouring books.

    What a clusterfuck.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Agreeing with 10:21! This is the tactic learnt so well by "our excellent leaders" some of whom learned how to manipulate and deceive when working as CRC Senior Probation Managers - don't clarify anything, don't respond to difficult questions, don't admit to any dodgy practices (like the notorious Working Links illegal 'no breach policy') and don't leave an email trail. Probation Managers make the Post Office Management look like complete amateurs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn’t it great how someone wrote a blog post. Everyone that disputes about RAR days and supervision as if they’re going to have a say in this. Hardly anyone comments on the issue of HMPPS again destroying probation …. “probation re-set”. Happens all the time in the office. Team meeting to discuss important stuff. Three people and the SPO spend 30 mins talking about a plate left in the sink and a sandwich that went missing from the fridge. PDU call with the top brass, the same three people ask the same questions about Oasys and Wi-Fi.

      Delete
  34. https://insidetime.org/newsround/commission-will-examine-prisons/

    ReplyDelete
  35. What happened to the last probation reset?

    Probation service must ‘reset and raise’ standard of work with ethnic minority service users and staff urgently

    https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/media/press-releases/2021/03/raceequalityinprobation/

    ReplyDelete
  36. Court Probation Officer here. We have already started recommending 18 month orders for most people and advising the mags/ district judges about no supervision in the final third. You're actually going to be supervising or managing RAR days for longer than you would on a 12 month order. Unforeseen consequences and that....

    ReplyDelete
  37. The problem is these cases wont be terminated at two thirds. The allocated officer will remain responsible for tasks on cases with RAR, Supervision and PSS appointments suspended. Workload Management Tool will be amended but the actual work won’t be reflected. Probation directors have had this instruction for a month and haven’t proceeded and we can see why.

    ReplyDelete
  38. The appalling ECSL has now been extended to 70 days from 35-disgraceful and the post script to the bad news: "thanks for all your hard work, it's appreciated"- but we're not going to push back on your behalf. Astonishing lack of autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probation is now run by the prison management. There is nobody in probation that can “push back”.

      Delete
  39. Napo yesterday May 3rd:-



    Napo were informed by HMPPS senior managers this morning that the failed End of Custody Supervised Licence (ECSL) scheme was to be further extended to 70 days (therefore doubled) in 84 adult male prisons across England and Wales from Thursday the 23rd of May 2024 until further notice.

    We have, in no uncertain terms, communicated the anger and frustration that our members will feel at this decision to the HMPPS senior managers we have been in contact with. HMPPS has once again, in our view, demonstrated by its actions that it views the prison overcrowding crisis as the overriding priority for this organisation, to the detriment of all others. Napo have been clear throughout our discussions with the employer on ECSL, and the joint unions wider ‘Operation Protect’ workloads campaign, that Probation has been treated disgracefully in comparison to the attention and money spent elsewhere in HMPPS, all while this employer demands our members take on huge amounts of additional work at the shortest of notice to help them sort out a prison overcrowding crisis a generation or more in the making.

    Some in HMPPS have attempted to claim ECSL merely brings forward work that would be done by Probation staff anyway. Napo have consistently and vociferously argued against this position, which we do not believe for a second would be credibly adopted by anyone with any actual experience of this area of Probation practice. Members would seem justified to take the fact that such comments continue to be made by some in HMPPS as good evidence of the size of the chasm between their understanding of our work and reality.

    As members will be aware of from previous communications on this issue (for instance ECSL – Napo’s position | Napo) in discussions with HMPPS senior managers Napo have stressed the huge range of practical issues with the ECSL scheme as it existed previously. This latest extension of ECSL only exacerbates these difficulties, especially in the weeks prior to and following this extension coming into force when the demands on us are at their height, but also brings additional concerns. For instance, and a point repeated to HMPPS senior managers when this extension was disclosed to us, was its apparent impact on the ability of some of our members to comply with their statutory responsibilities (and HMPPS’s own policies) under The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (e.g., the ‘Duty To Refer’). Also, HMPPS have discussed an extension to the notice period Probation staff in the community should receive that of a person on their caseload is being considered under the ECSL scheme, but this remains far short of what we have previously discussed as being the minimum required for staff to complete such work safely and effectively.

    It is clear, and has been stressed to HMPPS in earlier talks, that any possible workload relief for some staff in ‘sentence management’ resulting from the ‘Probation Reset’ plans had already likely been wiped out by various ‘early release’ schemes introduced, and in ECSL’s case drastically extended, in recent months (ECSL, changes to Fixed Term Recalls and the extension of the Home Detention Curfew scheme) even before today’s news. Members should expect a further communication on ‘Probation Reset’ and the ongoing work by Napo and the other Probation trade unions under the ‘Operation Protect’ early next week.

    It remains unclear whether this extension to ECSL will stand up to parliamentary scrutiny, given in the last ministerial statement on the matter in March 2024, the Lord Chancellor referred only to that the scheme being extended to “around 35-60 days”. Napo members can be assured that we are in discussions with our contacts in Parliament, including the cross-party Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, to attempt to bring publicity to, and accountability for, this decision. Similarly, Napo will continue its numerous contacts with various media outlets to attempt to publicise our significant concerns over this news.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As previously discussed in our earlier communication HMPPS continue to refuse the calls of Napo and others, including in parliament, for figures on the impact of ECSL to be publicly released. This relates not just to the impact on the workload of staff but also on the numbers of people released under the scheme who have been released without any accommodation, recalled, committed Serious Further Offences, or died while subject to ECSL. Given this, members will draw their own conclusions, based on the first-hand experience of themselves and their colleagues or the apparently unauthorised disclosures made occasionally by some senior regional figures to staff, on just how disastrous these figures must be.

      Napo will continue to meet with HMPPS senior managers at every opportunity to repeat our concerns over ECSL and the make clear the strength of feeling of our members on this issue. In addition to this we will maintain our contacts with figures in Parliament and the media. For this reason, it is vital that members continue to keep us updated with their experiences of ECSL – without including confidential or sensitive information on the individuals released under the scheme – as we have used these in the work Napo have done to this point. Please contact your Link Officials and Officers or use the following email address if you want to share any of these with us as your trade union representatives info@napo.org.uk.

      Finally, members will recall the mandate provided by Emergency Motions 3 and 4 passed at our last Annual General Meeting (AGM) in relation to pay and workloads – Napo AGM 2023 Probation Emergency Motions. Napo would take this opportunity to remind all members of the importance of ensuring that your membership details – including those we should use to contact you – are up to date. Similarly, members should continue to check emails from both Napo HQ and your respective Branches in the coming weeks as further updates regarding these Emergency Motions, and possible next steps for us as a trade union, will be shared very soon.

      Delete
    2. ‘Operation Protect’ workloads campaign has been a failure then.

      Delete
    3. If workloads were protected you'd probably have a lot less sickness and resignations- but let's give officers 48 cases and hope for the best. Who will survive and who will throw in the towel....a madness of a way to run a service.

      Delete
    4. Napo commentary while utterly boring and lamentable it makes it clear in the sub text.
      1 hmpps do not regard Napo as a collective bargaining vehicle.
      2 have no regard for what comes out of Ian Lawrence's mouth.
      3 hmpps realise Napo cannot and would not do anything anyway.
      4 Napo have no terms and conditions having handed over the white pages a few years ago without fight.
      4 hmpps tell Napo without any consultative process so negotiation is definitely not recognised. On this point we have a lame duck union and inept general secretary and no employer bargaining agreement having swept us away in Lawrence agreement. So it's no wonder they dictate it is because they can and Napo already gave them the stick to do it. 5 it can't be reversed they us cornered and sscl run out civil service dictate like Nazis. Napo are a joke.

      Delete
  40. Met up with an old friend this weekend, who i've no seen for at least ten years. He was a solicitor, a dj & is now a recorder in a busy crown court complex. At one point in our conversation he seemed surprised I hadn't realised that the courts (his generic term for lawyers, clerks & sentencers) would more often than not look for the report writer's name before deciding if it was worth reading: "there was only a small handful of report writers the courts respected, where they knew a thorough job had been done & that the proposal was worth considering. But in recent years probation reports have become increasingly full of judgemental crap, they don't say anything meaningful & add nothing to sentencing outcomes. They're just 'garbage in, garbage out' ".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that’s a consequence of taking qualified probation officers out of courts. At best the probation officer training nowadays includes a brief placement in courts which literally nothing will be learned from.

      Delete
  41. NAPO it is time to withdraw from ALL interaction with HMPpS on the basis of bad faith as consultation and negotiation is clearly meaningless given your communication with members quoted here. Take the initiative do something ANYTHING rather than rolling over and selling us out.
    Ex regional rep and ex member
    PS other unions are available and could take such an initiative too

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They’d have to do that collectively in a very public way, with firm and irreversible objections to OneHMPps, Probation Reset, ECSL, OMiC, Prison Senior manager control of probation regions, civil service control, …

      Delete
  42. NAPO should tell HMPpS that it will support all frontline Workers to work to rule ie only work the hours individuals are actually paid to work, no unpaid overtime and to withdraw entirely the little amount of good will that is left. No more NAPO blustering and complaining but then doing absolutely nothing to support it's members as their jobs and mental and physical health are decimated by HMPpS. Where are the cases of NAPO taking on the employers and demanding that the law ie Health and Safety at Work Act are followed? Health and Safety legislation requires the Employer to take responsibility for both the physical and mental health of the Workers. This isn't happening and the situation is therefore unlawful. Wake up NAPO and act like a real Trade Union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Work to rule????
      It's clear from the thread above that nobody is clear what the rules are.

      Delete
    2. The campaign slogan is simple.

      “Get Prisons Out of Probation”

      What a fitting acronym too - GPOoP !!

      Delete
    3. Or "Release probation from prison!"..

      Delete
    4. on licence?

      Delete
    5. Haha, we do need to Get Probation Out of Prison. With 70 days ECSL too !!

      Delete
  43. The first step is to work your contracted hours. Refuse toil and overtime. After that if your manager is hassling you, have them prioritise the work within your contracted hours. It strikes me that at the moment staff are working over their contracted hours in order to complete the allocated work. This should not continue and your manager will have to prioritise the work you have in the time available. NAPO could support this move and keep it on low key oversight. It will not require any dispute notification as it can proceed as a campaign to work only the hours for which you are paid. Union support if management have a strop and watch the backlog build. It’s an easy win and should result in increased chaos. Some colleagues will moan but that’s for them I guess. As long as you stick to your hours there is little they can successfully pursue. You can’t sack people for sticking to their contracted hours. Stop viewing yourselves as a professional class; the “probation profession”disappeared years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “work your contracted hours. Refuse toil and overtime”

      This has been the union mantra for years and years. Probation unions are good at putting the responsibility back on the employee while nothing changes.

      Delete
  44. I hate to say this, but isn't the whole point of being in public service to administrate policy on behalf of the Government of the day? It's not about what we think or what is convenient to us.

    That doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our opinions, dwell on the likelihood or the impact these changes will have on our service users, or to fail to evaluate where our worth lay in the bigger scheme, when such changes occur, regarding pay and conditions, but that still doesn't negate the fundamental purpose of what it means for us to be public servants.

    To read some of the indignant comments above, from many of you, it's as if the prison and probation services should adapt to a more preferred model of yesteryear, to suit our own personal aspirations to what the probation service ought to be - because we would enjoy the work more that way and it would be less burdensome and less computer driven. If there is a strong service user advantage, fair dues, but is there? Why did the so called Gold Standard befriend, assist model change at all, if it worked so well before?

    I've donned my armour in readinness for your spears.

    I think it is really a case of 'suck it up' or find another profession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “to administrate policy on behalf of the Government of the day”

      And there you miss the point of what the probation service is and does.

      Delete