News Roundup 15

Some of this is a little old, but there's been a lot going on recently. The position of people with either mental health issues or learning disabilities in the criminal justice system has long bothered me and this Guardian article highlights a new report on the subject:- 

UK justice system failing defendants with mental health issues – charity

Specialist prosecutors should review all decisions to charge suspects with mental health vulnerabilities and the defence of insanity should be amended, a law reform charity has said. Defendants with learning disabilities and mental illness are repeatedly being failed by the criminal justice system in England and Wales, the report by Justice claims.

About a quarter of adults are diagnosed with a mental illness during their lifetime, and the proportion caught up in the criminal justice system is even higher. They need to be more clearly identified and supported, the study argues. If problems are not addressed, the fair trial rights of many defendants may be undermined, Justice says. The report says mental health experts, not police officers, should identify people with mental ill-health or learning disabilities.

Among other recommendations, the report says specialist prosecutors should be appointed for each Crown Prosecution Service area to make charging decisions in such vulnerable cases. Magistrates courts, youth courts and the crown court should have a dedicated mental health judge to deal with management of such cases, Justice proposes. A new capacity-based test of fitness to plead and fitness to stand trial should be placed on a statutory footing, the report adds. The defence of insanity should be amended to a defence of “not criminally responsible by reason of a recognised medical condition”.

Fresh sentencing guidelines on mental health and vulnerability should be developed and a broader range of alternative punishments made available to sentencers to meet the needs of these cases, Justice says. “Too many criminal justice actors, all along its pathways, are unfamiliar with the range of mental health conditions and learning disabilities that can create vulnerability nor what to do about them,” the report notes.

Sir David Latham, chair of the Justice working party, said vulnerability should be “properly identified and, where identified, properly approached so that the person either receives reasonable adjustments to give them the capacity to effectively participate in their defence, or if appropriate, is not prosecuted. Where a person is diverted from prosecution or prison, suitable and effective treatment and support must be available to ensure that the person remains outside of the criminal justice system.”

Andrea Coomber, the director of Justice said: “The criminal justice system is not suitably designed to accommodate people with mental health or learning difficulties. There are still fundamental problems with the criminal justice system’s response to vulnerability and too few people receive reasonable adjustments to enable them to effectively participate in their defence. “We are impressed by the efforts being made to create an integrated criminal justice and mental health sector. We hope that this report will build on that and bring about change for some of the country’s most vulnerable people.”

--oo00oo--

I'm not at all sure this new 'protocol' announced by David Lidington will make a blind bit of difference in improving the prison situation and just smacks of so much 'hot air'. This from the Guardian:-   

Prison inspectors given powers to alert minister to urgent problems

The justice secretary, David Lidington, has unveiled a series of measures that the government hopes will urgently tackle failing prisons in England and Wales. From Thursday, the chief inspector of prisons has been given new powers to alert the justice secretary directly of any urgent and severe problems he finds during a jail inspection.

This “urgent notification protocol” requires the minister to publish an action plan within 28 days to tackle the concerns raised. A team of specialists will also be assembled to ensure immediate action is taken and implement a longer-term plan to ensure sustained improvement.

The stronger inspection powers had been part of the prisons and courts bill that was dropped after the Conservative government lost its Commons majority in the general election. However, the protocol – which covers both private and public jails – has been agreed without the need for legislation by Lidington, HM Prison and Probation Service, and inspectors.

Peter Clarke, the chief inspector of prisons, said the new process should provide an effective and speedy response to the most serious incidents and circumstances. Clarke’s recent reports have documented an alarming deterioration of conditions in English and Welsh prisons, including high levels of violence, increasing drug use and record levels of assaults and self-harm.

Lidington said: “Openness and transparency are powerful instruments of change and I believe we should be accountable so the public can see exactly what we are doing to turn prisons into safe places where offenders can change their lives. A team of specialists will now respond when HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) trigger urgent notification to urgently drive improvements and ensure that prisons are safe, secure and providing a regular regime. To implement these action plans and improve safety, the recruitment of an additional 2,500 prison officers is key and we are already halfway towards reaching that target.”

Clarke said Lidington had accepted that he and his successors would be held accountable for delivering an “urgent, robust and effective response to when HMIP assesses that treatment or conditions in a jail raise such significant concerns that urgent action is required.” Clarke said it was the responsibility of the prison service , and not inspectors, to implement and monitor improvements. “HMIP will take account of a range of factors to decide when, in the judgment of the chief inspector, a prison should next be inspected. If for any reason an HMIP recommendation is not accepted, we would expect the rationale to be explained and published.”

Under the protocol the chief inspector will decide at the conclusion of an inspection whether there are significant concerns that need to be brought to the attention of the secretary of state. Formal notification will be made within seven days and a letter detailing the concerns will be published 24 hours after it has been sent privately. In 1995, a team of inspectors walked out of Holloway prison after finding a filthy, rat-infested environment overrun with cockroaches and where women prisoners were locked in their cells most of the day.

--oo00oo--

Here we have the latest figures regarding IPP prisoners as a result of a parliamentary question:-

Richard Burgon Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners serving IPP sentences have served (a) twice, (b) thrice, (c) four times, (d) five times and (e) six times longer or more than their original minimum sentences.

Sam Gyimah The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice

The number of prisoners serving IPP sentences as at 30 September 2017 who have served (a) twice, (b) thrice, (c) four times, (d) five times and (e) six times longer or more than their original minimum sentences can be viewed in the table below. We are determined to address the challenge of making sure all IPP prisoners have the support they need to show they are no longer a threat to public safety. We have been working closely with the Parole Board to process these cases as quickly as possible and, earlier this year, we set up a new unit focused on this and improving the efficiency of the parole process. This work is continuing to achieve results, with 576 IPP releases in 2016

Number of Tariff Lengths Served            Number of IPPs

From 2 to less than 3                               657
From 3 to less than 4                               469
From 4 to less than 5                               257
From 5 to less than 6                               157
6 or more                                                  275

--oo00oo--

A week or so ago the BBC Victoria Derbyshire programme covered an all-too-familiar sad tale of life in Britain for those at rock bottom and for whom prison is preferable to street homelessness. It also highlights the pernicious nature of that other Blair innovation the Anti Social Behaviour Order. 

'I asked to go to jail, rather than stay homeless'

Banned from begging and sleeping in shop doorways in Middlesbrough, Bradley Grimes asked the judge in court to send him to prison rather than leave him homeless. What effect did it have? "All they've done is placed an anti-social behaviour order on me to try and stop me from begging. But I have to in order to survive," Bradley Grimes tells the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme.

He became homeless after leaving the care system aged 17. With autism and, in his own words, the mental age of a "young child", he was unable to find work and frequently turned to begging - asking passers-by for food and money at the side of a busy street. But this led to Middlesbrough Council giving him an anti-social behaviour order, or Asbo. It came with a condition banning him from "loitering" outside business premises.

Bradley says it prevented him from "basically sitting outside a shop" and sleeping in doorways for warmth, and meant he was continually arrested. "CCTV picks you up and they dispatch either the police or street wardens. If police come, you're arrested," explains Bradley, who's now 23. He says he attracted the authorities' attention for sitting rested against a bus stop.

"It got to the stage where they were locking me up once or twice a day, for a period of a few months. I was in [prison] pretty much all weekend, near enough every weekend. I can't even sit on a public bench without being locked up. I have to keep moving."

Frustrated at his situation, he decided to seek help - albeit in an unusual form. When in court, charged with breaching a four-month suspended jail sentence - something he admitted to doing - he asked the judge to send him to prison. He hoped it would pave the way to him being found suitable accommodation.

"That's the last option I had, that I could think of," he explains. The judge was sympathetic, and was reported in October this year as saying that "essentially we are locking up a homeless man for being homeless. I want him housed somewhere so that his welfare can be looked after. It is not good enough for the authorities to turn around and say that it is somebody else's problem. If I were to let you go today the chances are that you would be sitting on a seat or sleeping in a shop doorway and you will be locked up again."

By November, Bradley was released - with supported accommodation made available. He had lived in the same building previously, but says he was told to leave after cannabis was found in his room. Bradley has also had problems with Class A drugs, which he says he used "to take the pain away". 

This time he says he is determined to live clean, and has avoided drugs since his release. Bradley says life can still be tough. In fact, he believes that because of his autism, it was simpler in prison. "You don't have to worry about anything in [jail]. [Whereas on the outside] it's impossible for me to cope on my own, because I'm bad with things like budget and money."

When Bradley left prison in Durham, he had just £17 to his name - most of which he used for the train journey back to Middlesbrough. He has now applied for benefits, which he is waiting to receive, but says his lack of funds over time has had a significant impact on his health. Bradley has a brain tumour - and suffers with epilepsy and a heart murmur - but says he cannot afford to travel to the specialist cancer centre in Newcastle for treatment. He says his story could have been different had he been supported sufficiently by the local authority when he first became homeless. Instead, he claims he was sent from one agency to another.

Middlesbrough Council has not yet responded to request for comment. While walking around town Bradley spots a friend, a homeless man named Tony who says he cannot get any help at all. Tony says he has to steal from drug dealers to have enough money to survive. It is not something Bradley condones, but the desperation behind the act is something he says he understands.

--oo00oo--
Finally, we can always rely on Private Eye to keep the TR omnishambles saga on the news agenda:-

Marking Your Own Homework

It looks as if David Cameron's legacy has started to unravel quite quickly with yet more bad news concerning his poor judgement skills that have echo's of the money he was persuaded to throw at failed charity Kids Company. It's also a perfect example of the flaws inherent in Payment by Results scams. We start with a comment from this blog on 3 June 2015 at 07:38

"no link between performance and bonus"?

I watched with interest an article on Newsnight this week about the governments Troubled Families project. Local councils were given considerable funding on a PbR basis for successful outcomes in turning troubled families around. There was apparently 120,000 families requiring intervention, although no one could identify how this figure was reached. The councils were left to determine what interventions were necessary, and also left to their own determination of what a successful outcome would constitute, (marking their own homework was the phrase used). 

Amazingly, all 120,000 families had their lives successfully turned around! Not one failed which was 'lucky' for the councils as they could claim the maximum amount available under their PbR contract for their success. No doubt some got pretty good bonuses, and no doubt CRC owners have learned a lot about how to make a PbR model really pay dividends - and achieve a 100% success rate!

--oo00oo--

Well, like a dog with a bone, BBC's Newsnight have returned to the subject. This from the BBC website:-

Troubled Families report 'suppressed'

An unfavourable official evaluation of the government's flagship policy response to the 2011 riots has been suppressed, BBC Newsnight has learned. The analysis found that the Troubled Families programme had "no discernible" effect on unemployment, truancy or criminality. The initial scheme sought to "turn around" 120,000 households at a cost of around £400m. The local government department has been approached for comment.

The report, which the government has had since last autumn - and seen exclusively by BBC Newsnight - is embarrassing for ministers, who not only implemented the scheme, but have since decided to extend it. They had trumpeted previous assessments of the scheme, which had suggested that 98.9% of families participating in the scheme had been "turned around".

Furthermore, a second wave of the Troubled Families programme was announced in June 2013, and began to roll out in April 2015. It covers another 400,000 families at a further cost of £900m.

The "troubled families" programme was aimed at those affected by high unemployment, truancy and anti-social behaviour. The scheme was intended to save money and prevent future rioting by reducing the problems of this group of disadvantaged families. A senior civil servant told Newsnight that the report is "damning", and attacked the scheme as "window-dressing".

Troubled Families was a project pushed by the last prime minister. In August 2011, shortly after the riots, David Cameron announced that he would "put rocket boosters" under existing plans being drawn up in Whitehall "with a clear ambition that within the lifetime of this Parliament we will turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled families in the country".

In December 2011, the then prime minister added: "Some in the press might call them 'neighbours from hell'. Whatever you call them, we've known for years that a relatively small number of families are the source of a large proportion of the problems in society." The government also committed that the effectiveness of the policy would be measured by a consortium of analysts led by a consultancy called Ecorys. The evaluation was expected to be published. But the document has been kept under wraps in Whitehall. An official who had read the report told Newsnight that it was being suppressed because of its findings.

No measurable impact

This official analysis of data from 56 local authorities covering the first 18 months of the programme states: "The lack of obvious effect from the programme across a range of outcomes indicates that the programme did not have a measurable impact on families within the time-frame over which it was possible to observe its effects."

It found "no discernible impact on the percentage of adults claiming out-of-work benefits" and "no obvious impact on the likelihood that adults were employed" 12 or 18 months after starting on the programme. The analysis also found it "did not have any discernible impact on adult offending" seven to 18 months after the family was booked into the programme.

They added: "Whilst it was more difficult to match the treatment and comparison groups when looking at child outcomes, the findings suggested that the programme also had no detectable impact on child offending." Their analysis of truancy got different results depending on how the data was analysed, leading analysts to conclude that "any impact that the programme had on the absence rate was not robust".

The researchers reported some problems with data quality and representativeness. "The sample sizes that the national administrative data provided meant that it was feasible to detect impacts which were relatively small in magnitude," they wrote.

The trouble with Troubled Families

The Troubled Families programme always had strange design features. Each local authority was given a target number of families to identify and recruit for the scheme - getting a payment of £3,200 for each household that they signed up.

The choice of families - households with some combination of factors such as truancy, anti-social behaviour and adult joblessness - did not seek to identify people involved in rioting. The ambition of the scheme was that the family would be assigned a single, co-ordinating key-worker who adopts a "persistent, assertive and challenging" approach and can "get to grips" with the whole family and look at the family "from inside out rather than outside in".

But the success criteria were very vague - families could be deemed "turned around" even while the children were still persistently truant or committing crime, just so long as they did so less frequently than they had done before. And councils received a further payment of £800 when the family met certain criteria that meant they were deemed turned around. Local authorities, therefore, had strong incentives to declare successes: lots of councils claim to have had 100% success rates.

Nationally, 98.9% of the 118,000 families in the scheme were deemed "turned around" - a remarkable success rate in any policy, let alone one working with people who have complex and multiple disadvantages. These figures were taken as proof of the success of the scheme.

Speaking in June 2015, Dame Louise Casey, until recently the civil servant in charge of the scheme, said: "It's fantastic news that the programme has now turned around the lives of so many troubled families. That's almost 117,000 families where kids are back in school and youth crime and anti-social behaviour has been cut, and in more and more of these homes an adult has now moved off benefits and into work."

Stephen Crossley, a researcher at Durham University who has been examining the scheme, has described the success rate as "unbelievable". A civil servant involved in the Troubled Families scheme, however, argued that while the programme might not work effectively "more money for social work probably can't be a bad thing right now".

This from the Guardian:-

£1.3bn troubled families scheme has had 'no discernible impact'

The £1.3bn government “troubled families” scheme to tackle entrenched social problems following the riots in 2011 has had no discernible impact on unemployment, truancy or criminality, an unpublished Whitehall report has found. The official evaluation of the programme launched by David Cameron has not been published because it would be embarrassing to ministers, it has been claimed.

A senior civil servant, interviewed for an investigation by BBC’s Newsnight, described the report by independent consultancy Ecorys as damning.

The initial troubled families scheme, launched by Cameron in 2012, sought to “turn around the lives of the 120,000 most troubled households in the country” at a cost of about £400m. A second wave of the scheme has since been launched to cover another 400,000 families at a further cost of £900m.

Cameron said he wanted to put “rocket boosters” into the system to underline the importance of strong parenting in preventing the kind of social problems that led to the riots in London and elsewhere. It aimed to break the cycle of problems such as poor parenting, domestic abuse and other issues including institutional care identified by Dame Louise Casey as contributing to the transmission of problems through generations.

Last year Cameron pronounced the scheme a runaway success with 117,000 families “turned around”, saving £1.2bn in the process. But a separate government-commissioned audit of the effectiveness of the programme has concluded differently. According to Newsnight, the Ecorys report examined data from 56 local authorities and concluded there was “no discernible impact on the percentage of adults claiming out-of-work benefits either 12 or 18 months after starting on the programme” and “no obvious impact on the likelihood that adults were employed 12 or 18 months after starting on the programme”.

“Participation did not have any discernible impact on adult offending” seven to 18 months after the family was booked into the programme, it said. Ecorys added: “Whilst it was more difficult to match the treatment and comparison groups when looking at child outcomes, the findings suggested that the programme also had no detectable impact on child offending.”

They also identified problems with the data quality and representativeness. “The sample sizes that the national administrative data provided meant that it was feasible to detect impacts which were relatively small in magnitude.” It said the success criteria were also vague – families could be deemed “turned around” even while the children were still persistently truant or committing crime, just so long as they did so less frequently than they had done before.

Councils were paid £3,200 for each family they signed up to the programme with a further payment of £800 when the family met certain criteria. Nationally, 98.9% of the 118,000 families in the scheme were deemed “turned around” by the government.

--oo00oo--

So, yet another social problem sorted by the 'Tsar for all seasons' the now handsomely-rewarded Dame Louise Casey, DBE CB. We all remember her famously getting to grips with homelessness by discouraging soup kitchens and criminalising thousands with ASBO's. She's moved on again of course and this from the BBC website explains what she's up to and the secret of her success:-

Louise Casey: The Asbo tsar set to tackle extremism

Louise Casey is to lead a review into improving the integration of Britain's minorities as part of a broader effort to tackle extremism. Why do prime ministers keep coming back to this most unorthodox of civil servants?

Call Casey - that's the cry that seems to go up in Downing Street whenever there is a hot button social issue to be tackled. For nearly two decades now, she has blazed a trail through Whitehall, charming Labour and Conservative leaders alike with her blunt, no-nonsense approach to complex problems.

She is the social worker who doesn't sound like a social worker, the policy expert who doesn't send you to sleep. As a result, she has collected more titles than a member of the Russian royal family. She was Tony Blair's Anti-Social Behaviour tsar, and then his Respect tsar and then - as the Labour government gave way to the coalition - the first Independent Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses for England and Wales (or Victim's tsar).

She gave up that role to take charge of an inquiry into the 2011 London riots. Then, in September last year, she was appointed by former local government secretary Eric Pickles to head the independent inspection of children's services at Rotherham Council in the wake of the child sexual exploitation scandal and examine whether it covered up information about the abuse.

Since 2011, her main job has been director general of the government's "troubled families" unit. She has her critics - she was once branded the "punitive face of Tony Blair" by probation officers' union boss Harry Fletcher, who took exception to her work on anti-social behaviour. But politicians seem to value her because, in the words of former Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in a 2010 Radio 4 profile, she can "really cut through the bureaucracy and Blarney" and get things done. In a world of cautious, politically correct, hedge-betting civil servants, 50-year-old Casey has always stood out.

'Yob culture'

Casey was born in Cornwall and grew up in Portsmouth in a working class household - she and her brother were the first members of her family to go to university. She studied history at Goldsmith's College, London, and threw herself into student activism, marching against student loans and becoming a member of Amnesty International. Friends recall a big character, funny and charismatic, who loved making speeches and could not resist a karaoke night (Billie Holiday and The Beatles were favourites apparently).

Her first job was as a benefits clerk for the DHSS but she soon moved into the charity sector, with the London Homeless Network. By 27, she was deputy director of homeless charity Shelter. She was drafted into government in 1999 as the head of Labour's Rough Sleeper's Unit and ran into immediate controversy by suggesting that homeless charities were making it too easy for people to sleep on the streets by providing soup runs and top-of-the-range sleeping bags.

In 2002, Tony Blair made her head of the government's Anti-Social Behaviour Unit, with a brief to tackle "yob culture". She almost came unstuck three years later when she was secretly recorded making an expletive laden speech to police officers and senior civil servants in which she appeared to mock her own department's stand on alcohol abuse.

"I suppose you can't binge drink any more because lots of people have said you can't do it. I don't know who bloody made that up; it's nonsense . . . Doing things sober is no way to get things done," she told her audience.

'Sleep with the devil'

She also took a swipe at one of the favourite Whitehall obsessions of the era: "If No 10 says bloody 'evidence-based policy' to me one more time, I'll deck them." She came close to being sacked over that incident but was cleared by an internal civil service investigation. She became a little more guarded in her public statements after that but still managed to grab headlines on a regular basis.

"The Daily Mail don't like me 'cos I'm female and fat and lefty. Other people on the left think I sleep with the devil," she told The Guardian in 2013. The problems Casey has been asked to tackle during her career are often hard to define and even harder to measure.

Is there less anti-social behaviour in Britain and more "respect" as a result of Casey's work? Anti-Social Behaviour Orders were hugely controversial, with critics claiming they were too punitive and arbitrary. Casey claimed they transformed lives and they have survived, in modified form, to the present day. The troubled families unit was meant to "turn around" the lives of 120,000 families by May this year.

'Shame and guilt'

"We are not running some cuddly social workers programme," Casey told The Daily Telegraph when the scheme was launched. "We should be talking about things like shame and guilt...we have lost the ability to be judgmental because we worry about being seen as nasty to poor people."

The idea was to ditch the patchwork of different agencies in favour of a single, dedicated intervention worker, who would effectively take over the chaotic lives of those identified to be causing the most problems in their area. Casey ordered them to go where other social workers feared to tread.

"Some of these women are on child protection plans because of the men they insist on living with. Family intervention is about getting in there and saying 'actually, you know your kids are going to be taken away if you don't do something about this fella - I'll help you do it'. And they do," she told BBC News in 2013. Local authorities were paid by results, such as getting a child back into school, reducing crime or a family member getting, and keeping, a job.

In November last year, Eric Pickles said that more than 69,000 families had turned around their lives according to this criteria and the government was well on the way to meeting its target - but some wondered whether the improvements to the families in the programme would last.

'Crack alley'

Perhaps Casey's real value to politicians - and the reason she keeps being asked to produce reports on difficult social problems - is that she say is able to say things in public that they think privately (that social workers are too "soft" for example). She has the authority of someone who has got her hands dirty - she would go down a "crack alley" to find out why someone was taking drugs, a friend told a BBC Radio 4 profile - and the sort of drive to get the job done that is highly prized in the civil service.

But she also appears to have a handle on the emotional lives of those she is trying to help. "They've got trouble in their souls, trouble in their heart, troubles in their head," she said of the young single mothers who were the focus of the troubled families unit, arguing that their problems stemmed from "not having enough love or of having too much pain".

Her latest role - to produce "a comprehensive review into boosting opportunity and integration to bring Britain together as one nation", which David Cameron hopes will lead to more people from ethnic and minority backgrounds feeling they have a stake in society - must be her toughest, most wide-ranging and politically sensitive challenge yet.

One thing is certain though - she won't sugarcoat her conclusions.

Got To Be a Better Way

I've been a bit remiss of late and admit to not having followed diligently the second series of 'The Lock Up' on BBC1. The main reason is it's on a bit late for me, but I did find myself staying awake last night for the last in the current series. Filmed over many months in the custody suite at Priory Road police station in Hull, these films provide some sobering and sometimes harrowing scenes which I suspect most ordinary members of the public remain blissfully unaware of. 

Invariably during night shifts, most of those arrested arrive significantly under the influence of alcohol and the behaviour can range from the amusingly incoherent to the violently uncontrollable. In this particular episode it takes emergency assistance from all available officers in the whole police station to subdue an enormous Pole having a violent fit whilst withdrawing from the effects of alcohol. 

Disturbing to watch though this was, like many others I suspect I found myself most concerned about the young woman carried in whilst still sat in her wheelchair. Suffering from Cerebral Palsy, she is under the influence of alcohol and very well known to the staff. She has been arrested for breaching her ASBO by virtue of behaviour towards her neighbours and proceeds to be abusive and uncooperative throughout the booking-in process. 

When in her cell she finds various ways of drawing attention to herself including wetting herself claiming that she is unable to reach the toilet unaided. Apparently she has a long history of attention-seeking behaviour, hence the terms of her ASBO includes not to contact the emergency services unless there is a real emergency.

This young woman represents a small but extremely challenging group that society seems completely at a loss to know how to deal with. Giving her an ASBO certainly isn't going to do the trick and merely serves to ensure that she will go to prison, in this case for 6 months. What I always find astonishing in such cases is the unwillingness or inability on the part of society to spend a bit of time and effort in trying to find out why? 

Of course in the old days that would have been probation's job, but I bet we washed our hands of her years ago saying things like 'low risk' or 'untreatable.' Sure she would possibly have been  a nightmare to supervise, but you can bet she has a story to tell and she desperately wants someone to listen and take some trouble to try and understand. 

I know I tend to repeat myself, but it's so bloody obvious to me that the skills of a clinical psychologist would be entirely appropriate in such a case in trying to tease out the underlying issues, but I'm repeatedly told they are too expensive and a Community Psychiatric Nurse would be cheaper. Well a CPN is entirely inappropriate, no matter how cheap, but instead society seems to feel that expensive prison is much more appropriate. 

I might add that the costs and trouble for society will just keep mounting in a case like this because she is going to lose her accommodation either through more lengthy prison sentences, or eviction for bad behaviour. Why is it we can never seem to convince the bean counters that spending some money early on, and on the right things, will not only save money later on, it just might mean that people like this poor tormented and disabled woman could lead a happy and contented life. 

Thank you BBC and 'The Lock Up' for bringing this kind of issue to wider attention.          

  

We Used to do That!

Once again government attention turns to the issue of 'problem' families. The riots last year have ensured that 'something' has to be done. The numbers have been crunched and it's become accepted wisdom that the problem lies with 120,000 families that include about 320,000 children. Typically they are the long-term unemployed, live in poor housing and have health problems including drug and alcohol addictions.The cost to the tax payer is said to be a staggering £9billion. 

The governments answer seems to be to have a 'whip round' of departments and the resulting paltry £448million will be used to 'incentivise' eligible Local Authorities to tackle this group. If they are successful in reducing truancy, police call-outs and anti-social behaviour, they will get more money. Apparently the government feels that a co-ordinated approach by involved agencies would be a good idea in order to offer such troubled families a 'helping hand'.

One of the things I find astonishing about this new initiative is the fact that historically dealing with this very group used to be a primary function of the Probation Service. After all, we were the professionally qualified social service specifically set up within the Criminal Justice System, and empowered with a wide remit to tackle many of the issues associated with 'problem families'. So what happened I hear you ask? Well the politicians got involved of course and as always felt they knew better, stripping us of our social welfare role and making us primarily concerned with punishment alone.

It's always difficult to prove cause and effect in social policy areas, but it can't have helped that during the period that we were being 'transformed', society began to wake up to a growing problem with these so-called 'problem families'. It's also worth pointing out the irony that during this period it was Local Authorities themselves that were allowed to contribute towards the stored-up problems we now face. I well remember the utter intransigence of my local Housing Authority towards any assistance for families that they regarded as 'undeserving.'

In my experience, the local council was the problem both in terms of housing allocation, housing management, social services and education provision. A huge chunk of my time was taken up with advocating on behalf of clients with councils who basically felt the answer to everything was to ASBO them and get them over the county boundary, Elizabethan Poor Law style. Well, I'm clear that the effects of this disastrous New Labour policy is now coming home to roost. The sad thing is that we no longer have that professional social work agency within the Criminal Justice System to deal with it.       

       

Coppers 2

The Channel 4 tv programme 'Coppers' continues to provide fascinating 'fly-on-the-wall' viewing and last night's episode devoted quite a bit of time to someone very familiar to many old-style probation officers. I suspect every town in the land still has a Danny, even though most don't make it into old age, let alone middle age. Although most officers being interviewed about Danny made it clear in typical gallows-humour style that it would do everyone a favour if he just shuffled off this mortal coil, they obviously had a soft spot for him, but were completely at a loss how to help. And why should they - they're not social workers are they? But as the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester said a year or two back, that's who he effectively employs, hundreds and hundreds of 'social workers.'

Danny and his ilk have been a problem for society for many, many years. Probably the product of a very unhappy childhood, he failed at school, started 'getting into trouble' and just couldn't make a smooth transition into independent life. A secure home, relationship and employment  all eluded him and as a result he sought refuge and comfort in alcohol and drugs from an early age. Those substances are slowly killing him, as is the weather due to living on the streets. We're told he shuns help and I have no doubt this is partly true, but what is society's answer to this social problem? Why ASBO him of course. He's banned from the whole centre of the town where he grew up and that gives police a steady job interminably re-arresting him when he inevitably breaches the ASBO. A ridiculous merry-go-round of arrest, interview, court, prison, release and back to 'go' again. 

So what's the alternative? Well it will come as no surprise to hear that Danny used to be the responsibility of the Probation Service. When I started we were all social work trained and the Service took seriously it's legacy social welfare work with waifs and strays. But then so did society in general. Even up to the late 1980's, the State in the form of the DHSS still ran a nationwide network of hostels dedicated to helping the likes of Danny. But there were other providers too, the Church Army, Salvation Army and Local Authorities to name but some. They all provided help and support so that probation had a fighting chance when undertaking the often difficult and patient work of trying to turn the likes of Danny's life around.

I'm often asked if it worked? My answer cannot in all honesty be a trite 'yes'. Of course for some it worked, but remember probation only really see the 'failures.' For others it could be said to have failed, but I don't agree for the following reasons. Firstly, all probation officers quite quickly learned in those days that 'failure' just meant the guy wasn't ready yet and therefore you just had to try again, possibly something slightly different. Secondly, it was a much more humane way to treat people. I suspect I could now add a third which would never have occurred to me at the time and that would be that it was just 'cheaper.' 

Of course nowadays in the modern Probation Service we are all concerned about 'efficiencies and effectiveness.' The likes of Danny doesn't get a look in at all. He's low risk and therefore simply of no interest to us. Oh, and for good measure we'd say he wasn't suitable for Unpaid Work or any programme we offered and he'd be unlikely to respond to supervision. Every time I watch programmes like 'Coppers' it makes me reflect on why I became a probation officer in the first place and why I often feel so miserable about where we are today. I want to go and interview Danny, pick up the case and get to know him..... 

The rest of this particular episode of 'Coppers' featured officers spending hours getting tangled up with long-running neighbour disputes and possible ways to try and resolve them. Guess which agency of the State used to do that?! And talk to naughty kids, and help resolve child custody battles. Oh happy days......            

Back to Work

Yes going away is great - but so is the coming home and to a surprise surge in readers due to a recent plug by the American Association of Probation and Parole Officers. You are all most welcome. I have to say I spent a couple of very interesting days with colleagues in New York some years ago, including a fascinating morning observing a lower court in Manhattan. Of course there are many differences between our respective criminal justice systems, but lots of similarities too. 

Whilst away, I couldn't help but hear several snippets of news, one of which made me utter expletives in an uncontrolled manner. Has prime minister David Cameron taken leave of his senses bringing in the dreadful Louise Casey to advise on the aftermath of the recent riots? Yes the self-same person plucked from obscurity by Tony Blair to advise firstly on homelessness "stop soup runs - it only encourages it", then to champion the utterly failed Anti Social Behaviour Order that criminalised whole swathes of people, going on to spearhead the so-called 'respect' agenda and subsequently gaining promotion from Gordon Brown to Victim Commissioner. One can only hope that she's there for window dressing and wiser counsel will prevail in coming up with sensible lessons to be learnt from the recent civil disorder.

I notice that much is being made of the fact that 75% of those appearing in court as a result of the riots have an offending history, thus providing proof of the failure of our criminal justice system. I don't think it does any such thing and it certainly is no great surprise. If anything, it's the other 25% with no previous that should be of concern and serve to remind us that lurking just beneath the surface of our supposedly civilised society there are some very unpleasant forces capable of release when normal controls become absent. I hate to say it, but I did predict both this aspect and that harsh sentencing would result.

The discussions continue as to whether the sentences being passed are justified or not and the prison population breaks historic records each week. I can't help but feel echoes from history, whether that of the Luddites, the Suffragettes or Miners even. Some might say that they were very different examples of civil unrest, borne of social changes, inequalities or perceived grievances. Surely this was 'just' criminal activity by 'feral' youth? Hang on a minute - a group sidelined by social change, victims of an unequal society and harbouring grievances......

As a footnote and because I love history and believe it always informs our present situation, citizens of London particularly might like to reflect on why so many of their old or not-so-old police stations have flights of steps up to them? Clearly not very access-friendly in the current age of the Disability Discrimination Act, but a design feature conceived many years ago just in case the unruly masses ever revolted and decided to attack the forces of Law and Order in the shape of the local police station. Much easier to repel people coming up a set of stairs. That actually happened at several stations during the recent disturbances. It's also worth noting that fire stations were attacked and crews threatened and prevented from attending major fires during the riots. 

As I go to press, the Metropolitan Police are absorbing what the new Commissioner will bring to the party and with the London Olympics just around the corner, we must all hope his are indeed a safe pair of hands. The appointment of acting Commissioner Hogan-Howe was no great surprise with Sir Hugh Orde effectively ruling himself out by being far too gobby for government's liking and lets be honest, bringing in an American, no matter how illustrious, was never really a possibility was it? After all, he would never have been able to accept the knighthood that goes with the job.

What Do We Do With Billy?

The 'Billy' in question stars in a recent post by Inspector Gadjet. Although he lives on the Swamp Estate in Ruraltown, I certainly recognise him and so I suspect do most probation officers. We're not told how old he is, but he still seems to live at home with his mum and he is the father of a daughter. I'm sure he turned up recently in episode 7 of the BBC three fly-on-the-wall documentary series 'The Lock Up' filmed at Hull custody suite. He was the small irritating young guy going on about 'needing to get out to see his bairn'.

'Billy' has 100 previous convictions and has just been arrested on suspicion of nicking a minibus FFS. I don't know about you, but I put that kind of offence in the juvenile pain-in-the-backside sort of category. What on earth might the motive be? Perhaps he wanted to spare his legs walking home? He was no doubt bored and it was opportunistic. He's obviously not very sophisticated because DNA left at the scene eventually took the police to his mothers door. He cooperated fully and we are told even volunteered the location of the DVD player taken from the dashboard.

According to Inspector Gadjet's thesis 'Billy' should be locked up for very long periods of time basically for being a pain-in-the-backside. I have a degree of sympathy because I'm sure it was 'Billy' who had a go at breaking into my car last year. First he smashed a window to try and get the door open, then left a spot of blood behind whilst trying to bend the top of the door and get his hand inside. He eventually discovered that my make of car has dead-locked doors and even if he had got in, being a SAAB the gear stick is locked into reverse. All very inept, annoying and ultimately pointless. Hopefully his eventual arrest will serve to remind him that he's not a very successful car thief and he either needs to get better or pack it in.

Of course 'Billy'  is the product of his environment. He grew up in a community probably suffering second and third generation unemployment as all the unskilled jobs went ages ago. He will have failed at school and was probably excluded at about age 13, whereupon he started smoking and drinking cheap alcohol in earnest on the streets with all his similarly-excluded mates. Any youth provision will have closed ages ago and his drift into regular irritating crime and anti-social behaviour will have started. His offending history may well have been enhanced by being made subject of an ASBO and possibly even by elevation to PPO status where he would have been the beneficiary of a 'premium service'  that ensured even quicker arrest.
Thankfully this 'Billy' doesn't seem to have got onto heroin.

So, what are we to do with 'Billy'? Well fortunately evidence and experience shows that he will eventually grow out of it. Even he will finally discover that his behaviour is a pain-in-the-backside and the inevitable girlfriend will certainly remind him at regular intervals. Indeed in all likelihood it will be her who eventually succeeds in providing 'Billy' with the structure, supervision and boundaries that his life has needed all along. Hopefully she will re-inforce all the positive work that the YOT and probation service will be trying to undertake with 'Billy'. Of course what would be best of all is that this young man grew up in a society where all this could have been avoided in the first place. But that's a wee bit radical isn't it? 

Lets Do Something Different

The Justice of the Peace Blog highlights the sort of story which really gets me annoyed for a whole variety of reasons. He quotes the recent case of a 54 year old itinerant man from Neath who has 220 previous convictions and was in court for breaching an ASBO given in 2007 and which prohibits his presence in a small part of the town centre. He clearly has a chronic alcohol problem and I'm guessing most of his convictions are drink-related and a good number will be for petty offences such as Drunk and Disorderly. 

I have previously discussed similar cases and described how up until the mid 1980's there was a network of hostels and night shelters for such people run by the likes of the Salvation Army, Church Army the DHSS and Local Authorities. They have virtually all closed and been replaced with a smaller and much more highly regulated and bureaucratic regime of projects for the homeless. The trouble is that hardly any are direct access, ie open 24/7 and virtually all have complicated referral and selection criteria.

Now all this is understandable and commendable at the level of professionalism, health and safety etc etc., but of course people like the chap from Neath never quite fit the criteria. He and I suspect many hundreds of other similar men - and it is mostly men because Local Authorities still have some statutory obligation towards women and young people - simply fall through the net. When they cause a problem, society in the form of the Courts just want them moved on in classic Elizabethan-style to the town boundary, a method enforced nowadays by an ASBO. Alternatively they are just incarcerated for a few days before the whole process repeats itself again. Everyone wrings their hands, says nothing can be done and secretly hope that they turn up on someonelses door, or die. 

Over the years I have taken a close professional and personal interest in such cases as our chap from Neath. Until he had a stroke and was eventually housed in a sheltered housing complex, I regularly supervised a man in his 70's who was the subject of a ten year ASBO which amongst other things, forbade his entry into the town of his birth unless to see me. I still find this approach to dealing with such social problems as nothing short of astonishing and will be glad to see the back of the whole damned concept shortly. 

Anyway, back to Neath man, what do we do with him next time he appears in Court? He will of course within days because it is quite unfair and naive to think he can 'turn his life around'  by himself and motivated by a good telling off.  My answer is simple, but will be unpopular. He's given a Community Order with supervision for 12 months, whatever the probation FDR or SDR says. I say this because invariably either will categorically say 'there is nothing the Probation Service can do'. What that really means is that they don't want to get involved as it will be too difficult, for a new-style officer anyway.

Well I beg to differ and in any event the permission of the Probation Service is not required to make such an order. If it leads to trouble, an interesting dialogue can be opened up as to exactly which agency is responsible for trying to tackle this mans offending, if it is not the Probation Service? Homelessness should not be a bar to such an order either. True it is unusual to give a Community Order to someone who is homeless, but there are precedents and the legislation does not stipulate that an address is required. Care should be taken to question the Probation Service closely should the order be returned to court as 'unworkable'. Do they really mean 'difficult'?

This man will have been on probation before and there will be a very thick file held in the dead file store. My guess is that he will have been very well known and may well have some history of violent offending, so his risk level may not be that low. This might be significant because of the probation mantra 'resources follow risk'. I'm even prepared to go that bit further and help write the supervision plan for the hapless colleague who might get the case.

This chap requires someone to talk to on a regular basis in order to get the full history (if not in the file). This will build a relationship and help to discover the reasons behind his downward spiral. There may well be health issues in addition to the alcohol and my guess is he has no GP. The PO can sort that as it is a statutory obligation to have one allocated. This advocacy function can be extended to discussion with the solicitor in order to prepare a case for lifting the ASBO. He may well have special needs that require involvement from Social Services and it will require all the skills of a PO to get them to agree responsibility, but that will lead to assessments and then appropriate referrals to possible housing providers.

I could go on, but I hope readers get the gist. It is ridiculous, callous and inhumane for society to continue to allow men like this to carry on being ignored when they clearly need help. We have an appropriate agency of the State sitting on the sidelines currently saying it's nothing to do with them. They just need a nudge and a reminder as to how it used to be done. So lets do something different next time.    

An Enduring Problem

A recent post on the Magistrates blog about a homeless, mentally disturbed alcoholic man and what society could or should do with him got me reflecting about my probation journey and supposed progress. Over the years many such men have come my way professionally and undoubtedly they continue to pose society a problem. When I started out there were people called 'tramps', but the state at that time had a nationwide network of Reception and Resettlement Centres or 'spikes' that were open 24/7 and accepted men in any condition.

They were run by the Department of Social Security and were the direct descendants of the dreaded Victorian workhouse. They had a dual role of receiving itinerant or workshy men and making attempts at resettling them into independent, useful lifestyles. I vividly remember visiting one in the 1980's and being shown the fully tiled isolation room where the drunk or lice-ridden  were cleaned and sobered up and given fresh clothing before moving on to cubicles in a dormitory. Those able to work were engaged in either making large leather satchels for social workers and capable of holding their A4 notepads or equally bizarrely terrariums, also for social workers or probation officers. I still have one gracing my fireside. By the time the government decided to close them in 1985 there were still 15 dotted around the country. 

The last such facility closed only around 1989, all victims of the growth in political correctness that labelled such places as demeaning and dehumanising, but in the process handily avoided the knotty question of how such people were to be dealt with in the brave new politically-correct world. The sad fact is that there was never adequate replacement provision in either quantity or scope. Some might be tempted to ask if they worked? My answer would be that even if they didn't, wasn't it a rather more humane way to try and deal with such people than the situation we have today? We simply don't have the right facilities anymore and no agency claims any responsibility.   

In the 1970's when the Home Office was known for its pioneering experimental approach to social problems, they funded a Detoxification Centre in Leeds, West Yorkshire. The idea was to divert itinerant drunks from the Criminal Justice System completely and instead offer them a safe place to detoxify before being offered on-going support and accommodation. As an alternative to arrest and a night in the cells, the police could simply give the person a lift to the 'Detox' and hand them over. Sadly research apparently showed it wasn't 'successful' and the idea didn't spread. However Leeds continued to fund the facility for many years and it continues to this day, albeit in a substantially altered form. I would say that the original concept is as valid today as proposed all those years ago.  

I happen to notice that the city of Leeds is recently reported as being proud of a new joint policy between the council and police in dealing with those people found sleeping rough in the city. They're arresting them. I'm surprised they haven't thought of ASBOing them. The man from the council is quoted as saying that "there's places available at the local night shelter and so no excuse for rough sleeping." He clearly knows little about the subject and why that isn't always possible. Or maybe he thinks that some people just choose to sleep outside on damp cardboard in sub-zero temperatures for the hell of it. Many have pet dogs for warmth and unconditional companionship and shelters or hostels do not accept them. Some fear violence and others are barred for one reason or another. I still firmly believe that one measure of a decent humane society is how it chooses to treat such people and arresting them is definitely not it. 

As to helping the Magistrate decide on a suitable disposal for his chap, surely it has to be a probation order? Historically that's what courts have always done with problem offenders and it's what we were set up to do. He needs a mentor, an advocate, a friendly face, a person who understands. Yes I know it doesn't fit neatly into the ethos of the modern day service, but exactly which other organisation's remit does this guy fit? Answer there is none.       

Lessons from History

In the week that the government publishes its Green Paper on sentencing policy and rehabilitation, Monday nights second episode of Ian Hislop's 'Age of the Do-Gooders' on BBC2 made fascinating viewing for several reasons. I was particularly struck by the piece on Mary Carpenter who published a report in 1852 entitled 'Juvenile Delinquents, their Condition and Treatment'  and which contributed to the passing of the Juvenile Offenders Act of 1854.

As with so many Victorian social reformers of the time, she was driven by strong religious faith and a firm belief that child offenders could be reformed by compassionate care and love. She put these beliefs into practice by opening the first Girls Reformatory in Bristol in 1852 and in effect was responsible for ushering in a more enlightened approach towards child offenders that exists to this day. But what the programme made clear was that the path was not easy or straightforward and along the way Mary found it particularly upsetting when certain girls failed to respond to compassionate treatment.

Some 150 years later we find that the issues are pretty much the same. Some children have very poor upbringings that lead into poor life chances and inevitably for some, anti-social behaviour and criminal activity. As I discussed the other day, Frank Field's recent report confirmed all this and stressed just how vital good parenting is. But as Mary found all those years ago, today some child offenders have been so damaged that they remain difficult and challenging for society. Better that they are not damaged in the first place.

The difference nowadays is that, unlike in the age of the reforming pioneers, there no longer seems to be a universal acceptance as to how to treat delinquent children, or indeed what the causes are. I suppose with the general demise of a religious belief in compassion, the public have not been convinced by more recent sociological arguments. We have a vociferous right wing 'punishment' lobby which whole-heartedly supported the 'ASBO' approach, coupled with increases in the use of custody. Happily though, I continue to see signs that the coalition government is intent on returning us to a more intelligent and compassionate approach to the whole subject, even if motivated by the imperative to save money. The 'Age of the Do-Gooders'  would repay viewing on i-player for those interested in the historical background to current penal policy.  

Nature or Nurture?

It's one of the oldest chestnuts around and I've said before that my working hypothesis since university has been basically one of 50/50 because it conveniently means I don't have to give it much thought. Having said that, reading a bit about Frank Fields findings in his recently published report on child poverty makes it very clear that "there is overwhelming evidence that a persons life chances are most heavily predicated on their development in the first five years of life." It goes on to say that "lifes race is determined for poor children before they attend their first day at school."  They are likely to be unable to benefit sufficiently from state education and become part of a new generation of unemployed. By inference, they are more likely to cause society problems as well.

But the report makes clear the equally important point that good parenting is absolutely crucial and far more important than money on its own. I don't think probation officers would be particularly surprised by any of this and possibly it might not be surprising to a large chunk of the public either. The main concern of the report is to try and break the cycle whereby poor children become poor adults and is therefore extremely laudable, but didn't we always know this and it used to be called the 'cycle of deprivation?' 

To be honest I think this report serves to remind me exactly why I have difficulties with the stance often taken by the likes of the Daily Mail, Inspector Gadjet and the proponents of the ASBO approach to social problems. I have always been amazed at the vilification of many young people, routinely demonised for all sorts of criminal and anti-social behaviour, without taking due account as to exactly what the causation might be. Here we have a report making it clear that people aren't born a particular way, rather we all have to respond to our very different environments. Of course none of us can choose either our parents or our background. Hence the saying 'there but for the Grace of God go I.'

As a society we owe these kids from poor and neglected backgrounds some understanding about their situation when they start causing us problems. More importantly, we owe future generations of kids some much improved prospects. Of course in between these two statements, social workers, YOT workers and probation officers have to try and deal appropriately with the generation that has already been created and do some damage limitation, patching-up and general remedial work on behalf of society. I really do get the feeling that this government might actually be able to initiate some intelligent responses to the seemingly intractable social problems found in numerous parts of our communities beyond just 'ASBOing' people.

I have to admit I haven't read the report beyond the first few pages, but I notice that one proposal is for parenting education to be undertaken in schools up to GCSE level. A great idea as long as the kids aren't excluded from school of course and I do seem to remember that subject being around at my old Secondary Modern. 'Nothing new under the sun' then as the saying goes.     

Commissioner Speaks Out

Louise Casey - now there's a name that can still strike fear into the heart of any self respecting liberal. The great survivor, self publicist and architect of many of Tony Blair's big ideas, has decided to offer her thoughts on yet another part of the Criminal Justice System. I have to say I think the link between Jury trials for either way offences and her role as Victim Commissioner is a bit tenuous, but maybe she just feels the need to get back into the public eye again for some reason. She seems to be saying that victims will get a better deal if people are denied their current constitutional right to opt for Jury trial when wishing to deny an accusation of theft. Her contention is that the Crown Courts are clogged up with unnecessary, time consuming and expensive trials for trivial matters, thus delaying more serious trials with victims and witnesses kept waiting for long periods.

This is the person that, having shot to fame and the attention of Tony Blair, as 'Homelessness Czar' suggested that charities were perpetuating rough sleeping by handing out soup and sleeping bags. She said this only months after leaving the employ of the housing charity Shelter. Having supposedly sorted this problem out, she then of course became the main architect of that other great Tony Blair success story, the Anti Social Behaviour Order. After that, she again courted widespread publicity by insisting that offenders doing Community Service were visible to the public by making them all wear orange tabards. One of the many sad aspects to all this is that she says she's a regular Guardian reader. Oh dear, things just aren't what they used to be and it's even got Joshua Rozenberg using terms like 'Has the world gone mad?'

PS I notice the Commissioner will be giving evidence to the Justice Affairs Select Committee next Tuesday 9th November at 10.30am

Back to the Future

Sir Denis O'Connor, HM Chief Inspector of Constabulary is likely to have ignited a heated debate with his confirmation of what the public have known for some time, namely that the police have retreated from the streets. When he was interviewed by John Humphries on the BBC Today programme I was particularly struck by his use of military-style language such as 'the need to reclaim the streets' and to having to take up 'defensive positions'. I notice that PCSO's didn't warrant a mention at all, probably confirming that in reality they have been of limited use. They still have to patrol in pairs for their safety it seems and are not allowed out at night. Of course Sir Denis's timing couldn't really be better, coming as it does only days before the announcement of widespread spending cuts with police budgets not being protected. I guess it's wise to get your special pleading in early and Sir Denis is making it plain that the situation can only get worse if the police get less cash.

I think we all now appreciate that ASBO's haven't been the answer as promised by Tony Blair and as a probation officer I was relieved to hear the announcement of their demise shortly after the election of the new coalition government. They have been a disaster and led to many young people being incarcerated needlessly through widespread breach. But I don't think the answer lies with a 'crackdown' by the police. The responsibility is much broader and I'm reminded of this:- ".....a form of childcare for young people in trouble that involves neither custody nor punishment and provides opportunities to learn constructive patterns of behaviour to replace potential criminal ones" 

Not a quote from some trendy new piece of research,  but those with long memories will recognise it as a definition of something that went by the name of 'Intermediate Treatment' and dates from the 1960's and guess what - a social work philosophy that at the time underpinned the probation service. IT was running in the office as I joined and was a collaborative venture with our social work colleagues. Sadly we allowed the right-wing press to help sabotage an effective programme by labelling it as 'treats for naughty kids'. Of course in those days there was a dynamic Youth and Community Service and facilities called Youth Clubs. What happened there was we allowed councillors to label them as 'old fashioned' and unpopular and they were demolished instead of being adapted as youth culture changed. All to save money as unfortunately the Youth Service has never been a statutory service, but rather a 'permissive' function of Local Government and therefore one that can easily be cut back. An attempt to get the status of the Youth Service changed during the last government failed and we continue to pay the price with a widespread disaffected youth problem.

So, what is my prescription? A statutory Youth Service, properly funded, with qualified Youth Workers and that forms part of each districts Youth Offending Team. I have never understood the logic of a YOT that doesn't include the Youth Service for goodness sake. Oh, and how about having another look at good old IT - carrots instead of sticks - what an interesting concept.

What Does Work?

This is taken from the Criminal Law and Justice Weekly dated 10th July 2010:-

"The following case is true. I think the vast majority of magistrates’ court users would have recognized this without needing to be told. There may not be one such defendant in every sentencing list, but they are pretty common. Joe (name changed) is an alcoholic who, when not in prison, lives on the street.

He is now in his late 50s. He has almost 70 previous convictions, nearly all for drink-related criminal damage or other disorderly conduct. He has served a number of prison terms, mainly in the range of 14 days to six months. This time he is up for destroying two windows belonging to an estate agency. He kept throwing bricks at them until they finally smashed. The damage is valued at about £2,000. The only mitigation is the plea of guilty and the fact that Joe recently spent four months on remand for an alleged breach of an ASBO before the case was dropped (because the original ASBO could not be found). Financial penalties are obviously out. There is no prospect of Joe being suitable for any form of community order owing to his chaotic lifestyle and alcoholism. So what should the sentencer do? What is the right, or more accurately least wrong, disposal?"

For me what is of particular interest is the assertion that "There is no prospect of Joe being suitable for any form of community order owing to his chaotic lifestyle and alcoholism." This perfectly illustrates the utter mess the Probation Service finds itself in due to constant interference by successive governments. The answer in my view is quite straight forward and if I was the Court Duty Officer I would recommend a Probation Order for 12 months. I think we all know this makes common sense and in great measure is what probation was all about when I started out, but in those days of course I had almost complete discretion in the way I carried out my work; was subject only to 'guidance' not National Standards; probation was an alternative not a sentence and the management mantra 'resources follow risk' had not been invented - oh and we didn't have bloody OASys.

Those with long memories will recall that when initially instituted, a period of probation was not a punishment or sentence of the court at all - the defendant had to admit guilt and then agree to be placed on probation and promise to be of good behaviour for the given period. They were being given a chance to reform with the help of an allocated  Probation Officer and they promised to see that officer when requested either at the office or at home. Failure to comply might mean a return to court and the possibility of being re-sentenced. The Probation Officers role was to 'advise, assist and befriend' the probationer, thus encouraging the good behaviour expected during the probationary period.  A very simple concept that worked well for years, was widely understood by most, but one that has been comprehensively screwed up so that society sadly now has no way of dealing with Joe, other than sending him to prison. Progress?