MoJ Obfuscation

Another interesting example of MoJ obfuscation and secrecy from Inside Time:- 

Prison alcohol course dropped

An offending behaviour course used in prisons to help men convicted of drunken aggression has been dropped.

The Alcohol Related Violence (ARV) course was offered in English and Welsh prisons for men seen as a high or medium risk of reoffending. Using cognitive-behavioural techniques it sought to explore previous and current alcohol use, teach skills to prevent relapse into drinking, and spot patterns of how drunkenness can escalate to violence.

However, earlier this year it was removed from the list of programmes approved for use in English and Welsh jails by the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel (CSAAP).

The Ministry of Justice said the decision was taken because “there was limited uptake for this programme and the demand for this type of intervention was being met through alternative health services and the wider Offending Behaviour Programme”.

The ARV course will be “absorbed” into alternative courses, so any prisoner who had been due to join it is likely to be offered a place on another course instead.

ARV was one of 22 programmes approved for use in jails by the CSAAP. The panel has attracted controversy in the past because its membership is secret and it does not disclose what was discussed at its meetings – and because it can approve courses for use with prisoners before there is firm evidence as to whether they work.

It previously approved the use of the Sex Offender Treatment Programme, which was suddenly dropped in 2017, five years after an unpublished internal research report had identified that men who had taken the course were more likely to reoffend than those who had not.

The MoJ made no announcement at the time it dropped ARV. The move only emerged when it was omitted from an updated list of CSAAP-approved prison courses published on the MoJ website this month. It is not known whether a research study has been carried out on the reoffending rates of people who have completed the ARV course – and, if so, what the results were.

Courses addressing alcohol use which remain approved for use in prisons include the Alcohol Dependence Treatment Programme, Breaking Free, Building Skills for Recovery, and Control of Violence for Angry Impulsive Drinkers.

--oo00oo--

Another revealing article by Maya Oppenheim in the Independent:-

The rising levels of self-harm in women’s jails in the UK are “worryingly high” with some therapeutic services cancelled during the pandemic, a new report has warned. The study, carried out by the Prison Reform Trust, found the government has failed to meet almost half of the pledges it committed to in its 2018 Female Offender Strategy.

Researchers, who shared the report with The Independent exclusively, discovered the government has fully rolled out just 31 of 65 promises despite the strategy being published almost three years ago. The charity warned the recent announcement of 500 extra prison cells being built in women’s jails reverses one of the strategy’s fundamental aims to reduce the female prison population - saying they would not be required if they had managed to actually implement the failed action plan.

Peter Dawson, the Prison Reform Trust’s director, told The Independent: 

“There is little point having a good plan if you don’t deliver it. That requires a timetable, resources and measures of success. None of these are in place. Instead, the government seems to have abandoned the idea that its female offender strategy can deliver its explicit and most important outcome – a reduction in the imprisonment of women. It is prepared to find £150m for new prison places to meet the cost of policy failure, but only a pittance to secure its success. The large majority of women are sent to prison for non-violent offences to serve sentences of less than one year. It is time for the government to double down on its aim to send less women to prison by investing in community alternatives and limiting the use of pointless short prison sentences.”

----//----

A previous report by the Prison Reform Trust found 80 per cent of women in jail were serving sentences for non-violent offences. Other studies have found high numbers of female prisoners have suffered domestic abuse, while many suffer from mental health issues - with campaigners frequently warning women in prison are often victims of much more serious offences than the ones they have been convicted of.

Dr Kate Paradine, chief executive of Women in Prison, told The Independent the government had “lost its way” since the Female Offenders Strategy was formulated.

She said: “Its proposal for 500 prison places flies in the face of all its own evidence that says the vast majority of women in prison do not need to be there. We know 95 per cent of children have to leave their home when their mother goes to prison and building more prison places will only shatter more lives and unnecessarily separate families. There is another way, one that we know works. The government can listen to the evidence, implement its own strategy and divert the £150m set aside for these new prison places into community-based services, like Women's Centres, that tackle the issues, like domestic abuse, that sweep women up into crime in the first place - keeping families together.”

The latest research, which is based on the most recent data available, shows out of the strategy’s 65 commitments, 31 have been fully achieved, 20 partially achieved, while there has been zilch progress or quantifiable implementation of 14 pledges. But researchers noted even in instances where commitments were met via publication of guidance or instructions, there is a dearth of information showing whether it is successful.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We want to see fewer women going to prison and are investing millions in our female offenders strategy to achieve this through community sentences, addiction treatment and women’s centres. Custody will always be a last resort - the new prison places will improve conditions with more single cells and greater access to education and employment, helping women to get their lives back on track.”

--oo00oo--

Blog Update

As regular readers are aware, comment moderation has been in place for some time and it looks likely to be permanent I'm afraid. It destroys much of an opportunity for discussion, but the paucity of probation-related comment as opposed to anti-Johnson and government stuff means I'm deleting much of it.

I have no problem calling out lying bastards wherever they may be in political life, or indeed examples of home grown cronyism, corruption, right wing political crap etc, etc, but I'm not letting it take over the blog at the expense of the core purpose - keeping the probation ideal alive.

I've completely given up with the union, politicians, journalists and now academics. The ever-smaller band of 'legacy' probation officers are inevitably moving on either literally or figuratively as the bright new recruits seemingly can't wait to embrace the MoJ/HMPPS command and control ethos and even if they are unhappy, are too shit-scared to say anything publicly, even anonymously.

Yes I'm angry and yes I'm fed up - but I've also got better things to spend my time on and therefore this platform will continue to wind down. However, I will reserve the option to kick it back into life from suspended animation at any time and when I feel there is something useful to say and in furtherance of the probation ethos so clearly disappearing from sight.

Addendum 

Interesting to note that only a few hours after publishing this post, a very lively discussion has started on Facebook with news that updating case notes within 24hrs is to become a 'target'. Quite understandable from a professional point of view and a longstanding National Standard, but noteworthy that rather than do something about high caseloads, HMPPS command and control ethos dictates other approaches. At time of writing, the topic has attracted 63 comments, including the status of a review of the Workload Management Tool, but all such supposedly hidden from public view.       

A Warning to Charities

Yet another example of how unwise it can be for charities to enter into the world of contracting for public services. This from the Guardian:-

Drug and alcohol charity Lifeline Project collapses

Shock failure of charity serving 80,000 people a year and employing 1,300 comes after allegations over financial controls

One of the UK’s leading drug and alcohol treatment charities has collapsed days after the Charity Commission launched an investigation into claims that it had critically weak financial controls. Frantic efforts are being made to save the jobs of 1,300 employees of the charity, Manchester-based Lifeline Project, and the services it provides for 80,000 people a year, including prisoners in 22 jails and young offender institutions. Staff were told on Thursday that the charity was seeking to transfer services to other providers and warned that not all the work the charity does would continue.

The shock failure of Lifeline follows the collapse of the charities Kids Company in 2015 and 4Children in 2016 and is likely to reignite the debate about the running of essential public services by charities. Lifeline was set up in 1971 and grew particularly rapidly in recent years. Its annual income soared from £26m in 2012-13 to almost £62m in 2015-16, when it reported annual growth of 45%. It was formerly chaired by Paul Flowers, the disgraced former Methodist minister and Co-op Bank chair whose drug use was exposed in 2014. He was asked to resign from Lifeline in 2004 over allegedly excessive expenses claims.

Allegations of mismanagement were made to the commission last month by Roger Howard, a former trustee of Lifeline’s board, who is a leading figure in the drug and alcohol treatment field and served as chief executive of the UK Drug Policy Commission.

Howard said on Thursday: “Those of us who work in the charity sector and have a long history of serving on boards or as executives know that good governance is absolutely crucial. We have seen examples of other bodies, like Kids Company, where governance and leadership has been questioned. It’s really critically important to ensure that organisations delivering large volumes of public services have the right assurances in place.”

Howard served on Lifeline’s board from December 2015 to November last year, when he was asked to resign after seeking to raise concerns. These included the sudden rundown of the charity’s working reserves. The Charity Commission said on Thursday that Lifeline’s collapse highlighted the need for tight financial controls and oversight by charity trustees.

Paul Holdsworth, the commission’s chief operating officer, said: “We are sad to hear of the charity’s planned closure, though note that the trustees have worked to ensure that the majority of its services will continue and that the impact on beneficiaries and staff is managed and minimised.

“In the meantime we are engaged with the charity and its trustees, both to assess the events that have led up to this outcome and to ensure that trustees fulfil their duties and responsibilities in winding the charity up and passing its services to another charity.”

The charity runs drug and alcohol services across much of England and in Scotland. Its last annual report said it employed almost 1,500 people, but it is believed that many have been made redundant in recent weeks in efforts to stay afloat.

The biggest not-for-profit provider of treatment services, CGL, confirmed that it had been asked by Lifeline “four or five weeks ago” to step in to help and that it was working to take over “a significant proportion” of its projects. David Biddle, CGL’s chief executive, said: “We are moving to ensure the security and stability of projects that deliver services to vulnerable people across the country. We are providing the resources to ensure that they are able to continue.”

CGL, which stands for Change, Grow, Live, has annual income of £158m and employs 2,800 people. Biddle said it would “initially” make no job cuts among the Lifeline staff it was taking on, including its head office team, and he praised the role being played by Lifeline’s long-serving chief executive, Ian Wardle.

Lifeline did not respond to requests for comment.

Airbrushing of Probation Continues

According to Mark Leftly writing today in The Independent, it looks as if Michael Gove rather fancies importing the idea of Texas-style 'problem solving courts'. The fact that it's nothing new and that probation have been involved in such initiatives for years is neither here nor there. The important thing is that it's a brand new 'idea' from that well-known home of liberal penal policy Texas and astonishingly probation doesn't get a mention at all. The airbrushing of probation out of existence continues:-    

Michael Gove eyes up implementing Texas-style courts that monitor drug users rather than jailing them

Lord Chancellor Michael Gove has set up a team to investigate how to establish United States-style courts that would monitor drug offenders rather than send them to jail, in the hope it could reduce prisoner numbers.

English and Welsh prisons are virtually full, and nearly half of adult prisoners reoffend within 12 months. Now Mr Gove has asked a working group of Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials, senior judiciary, and think tank experts to look at “problem solving courts”.

Rather than simply sentence people over low-level drug, alcohol or domestic-abuse related crimes, they would be sent on rehabilitation programmes, and have their progress overseen by judges who would interview them in court for regular updates.

Mr Gove visited Texas last year to examine how a Republican programme has cut prison numbers by sending criminals on intensive courses to deal with drug abuse, alcohol addiction, and mental-health problems rather than sending them to jail.

Although Texas is not known for a progressive attitude to crime – the state retains the death penalty – its “Star” courts monitor offenders who can be treated, and will only send them to prison if they do not attend scheduled meetings or hit targets set by judges.

The working group convened by Mr Gove meets for the first time this month and is understood to be supported by both David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne. There will be between 10 and 15 members, and it involves Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Mr Gove is keen to gain the support of Lord Thomas so that he can get the plans past a judiciary who are concerned that such a sweeping change could be unworkable.

But many experts back him, including the Centre for Justice Innovation, which called for the establishment of these courts across England and Wales, in a report published before Christmas. Steve Brine, a Conservative MP who has pushed for these courts since his own visit to Texas in 2013, has written that it was “incredible to sit and watch lives literally being turned around” in courts in which offenders looked up to judges “in an almost parent-like way” as they praised their progress.

Mr Brine said last night: “I’ve seen problem-solving courts at work in Houston, and their recidivism figures are as impressive as they are indisputable. It has to be right that we explore how the concept can be scaled up here as we finally get away from the tired ‘lock them up or let them out’ mentality. These courts are inherently a Conservative approach because on one hand they help turn lives around, and because a smaller prison estate is at the end of the day a smaller state.”

A senior Tory source added: “This is a very Conservative proposition. Prison represents market failure and creates a bigger state. We, as Conservatives, want a smaller state – the Prime Minister, Michael Gove and George [Osborne] get that.”

MoJ figures show that prisons were 97 per cent full in December, with Wormwood Scrubs in west London, Oakwood in Staffordshire, and Dartmoor in Devon among those that were at capacity. In March 2014, there were only 265 free spaces out of 85,800 in the English and Welsh prison estate, and 14 privately run jails were asked to cram more inmates into their cells.

A prisons expert who has spoken to the Government about problem-solving courts said there was “a head of steam” behind the idea, and that the working group would start work “in the next few weeks”. The expert added: “There’s a process of ‘how do we implement this?’.”

Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns at The Howard League for Penal Reform, said: “We welcome any exploration of the problem-solving concept. One of the aspects that problem-solving courts cover is a sense of checking progress and monitoring how people are doing.”

However, Mr Neilson said the working group will have to determine how to avoid putting additional strain on community services that have been badly hit by austerity cuts.

He argued: “These courts are certainly one aspect of how you could reform the system and reduce prison numbers, though I don’t think it would do that on its own. I certainly think that the big question is these courts would have to link into services somehow, and of course there have been cuts to local government services.”

Mr Neilson added that there is a problem with the system in the US because it had limited welfare. This meant that committing a crime that would be resolved in these courts could be appealing because it would be seen as a “route to welfare”. This would be less of a risk in the UK where there is a more accessible welfare system.

David Hanson, a Labour member of the House of Commons’ justice select committee, said it was “a good thing” that Mr Gove was investigating the option. He added: “For shorter sentences there’s an argument for an alternative to prison sentences.”

Mr Gove told the Magistrates’ Association last month: “I recently visited the US to look at the innovative ways in which the judiciary were taking an active role in overseeing the rehabilitation of the offenders they had sentenced.

“I was impressed by the potential of these problem-solving courts to contribute to crime reduction and personal redemption. I know all of you care a great deal about the rehabilitation of the people who appear in front of you in court and want to play a bigger part in that process.

“The Lord Chief Justice and I have discussed how we can learn from the experience of problem-solving courts in other jurisdictions, and we are both keen to look at what more we can do in this area.”

A source close to Mr Gove added: “One of the principle aims is to make sure we effectively tackle the root causes of re-offending.”

A senior prison reform campaigner said: “This will help reduce numbers, but it can only work with more direct sentencing reforms. The real driver of prison numbers is that the length of sentences has grown for people who commit more serious crimes. This is a political problem – ministers have to make it easier [for prisoners] to earn their release.”

There are concerns that the system could prove prohibitively expensive. There have been limited pilots of problem-solving courts in the past, notably in Liverpool, where it failed partly because of cost.

A Moment's Reflection

Every now and then something happens to make you stop and reflect. I found myself walking through the big city recently on my way home. As with most cities, there are people begging and I was vaguely aware of a bundle sat on the pavement. As a strode past I momentarily caught his eye as he peered from beneath a baseball cap. By now several yards beyond him I suddenly realised he looked vaguely familiar. Could it really be the young man I'd supervised some 25 or more years previously as a very new Probation Officer?

He'd been one of my first cases when still living at home with his mother and truanting regularly. He wasn't getting into serious trouble but in those days we took on all sorts if the courts were worried about someone. He'd suffered years of abuse from a violent step-father and would often run away from home. He'd spent some time in childrens homes and run away from them too because of the bullying. I got to know him well over the following years as his contact with more criminally intent lads inevitably meant his offending increased.

I found him bright, pleasant and engaging, but hardly ever smiled. He's the only client to have ever given me a Christmas present, several pairs of socks in a gift basket I recall. During his first spell in YOI I remember his artistic flair really came to the fore and his reputation for pencil sketching meant he was in demand by inmates and prison staff alike eager to have their likenesses immortalised for friends and family. If I think about it now, this was the only time I saw this lad happy and content. He had real artistic ability which I remember envying enormously. 

Time moved on and I eventually found myself writing reports for Crown Court and visiting him in adult prison. I remember being devastated at hearing he'd tried to hang himself and during a subsequent episode of self harm had severed the tendons in his wrist. I know he's never sketched since. He moved away to the big city and my contact ended, but I admit I used to have a look on CRAMS now and then in order to see how he was doing. Invariably it was not good. Addicted to heroin and alcohol, he had become increasingly violent and time after time couldn't settle in hostels and so was pretty permanently on the streets.

When he eventually recognised me the other day he said he had just come out from an eighteen month stretch and in classic understatement volunteered that 'things aren't good at the moment.' If truth be known, things haven't been 'good' for this person for a very long time indeed. It never proved possible to get the expert psychological assessment and counselling that I always knew he needed. Such facilities where I work are almost non-existent. Now with virtually no teeth and resigned to life on the streets, I'm relieved to see he's still alive, but also reminded of a very uncomfortable fact. Pretty much his adult lifespan has mirrored my professional career, and to what effect? One of the hardest parts of this job is accepting sometimes not being able to make a damned difference no matter how hard you try.  

Mine's a Pint

Ever since I qualified as a Probation Officer, I've been interested in trying to understand and help clients who have difficulties with alcohol. It hasn't just been that when I started out alcohol was the number one issue, it's also that I love a pint myself and the contrast between something which I regard as pleasureable and safe with people being slowly killed by the same stuff is quite unsettling to say the least. I've always been fascinated in particular by peoples differing attitudes towards alcohol and their drinking habits. In short it's led to some absolutely fascinating conversations when trying to suggest there just might be alternative drinking patterns out there, in addition to trying total abstinence, which in my experience almost invariably fails. 

As with other aspects of our behaviour, we learn much during childhood and early adulthood. As seemed to be the custom in those days, my mates and I at school were indulging in under-age drinking at several local hostelries from about age 16, and sometimes in sixth form uniform I seem to recall. At least one teacher used to join us on our regular Friday nights at the Green Dragon and would duly 'get his round in'. Of course in those days there were no 'alcopops'. Hailing from the south, it was Courage Directors Bitter and I suspect at least some of us pretended to like it as we learnt, what I would now describe, as a responsible attitude towards alcohol. We over-indulged sometimes, but worked out for ourselves if the after effects were worthwhile or not.

I now realise that I've been lucky to have come through relatively unscathed the work place culture of the 70's and university culture of the 80's where heavy drinking was routine and very enjoyable it has to be said. I say unscathed because, unlike many clients, I feel that alcohol has not proved a problem to me. I have always seemed able to control it, rather than the other way round. But then I've always regarded the consumption of alcohol as invariably an adjunct to social interaction, not something to be indulged in alone, or indeed for its own sake routinely. Nor indeed before 11am, when possibly only a small sherry might be appropriate. Or nowadays often beyond two pints, or two glasses of wine when eating. I also find that I can't drink happily in unpleasant surroundings.

What has become apparent to me over the years is that many clients have very different attitudes towards alcohol and its consumption. On many occasions I've been asked incredulously "what on earth is the point of only two pints?" Many nowadays indulge in the practice of 'pre-loading' whereby you 'neck' a good quantity of alcohol before you set out for a drinking session. Others are bewildered at the thought of returning home with any money left in their pocket at all. Yet others see no point in stopping drinking until they are incapable of standing and see no great problem in not being able to remember anything about their binge session. What sort of society have we created where this is now regarded as the norm for our young people?

During my time as a Court Duty Officer I've had to explain this sort of current cultural attitude towards drinking to an often incredulous Bench and how it may not be a 'problem' in the accepted sense of the term. Well obviously a problem in that their behaviour has landed them in court, but not an alcohol problem 'per se.' I always tend to ask routine questions such as if they have any 'shakes' in the morning? Do they wake up sweating a great deal? Do they feel better after drinking a couple of litres of cheap, strong cider first thing in the morning? Are they eating properly? Do they get indegestion a lot? Coughing up blood? Losing weight? By the time the answers are affirmative, they do indeed have a serious problem. 

Hopefully, most of our young people will never reach this stage where the body has become utterly alcohol dependent and uncontrolled cessation would be extremely dangerous. In order to reach this point there has been a growing psychological dependency. Sadly experience has confirmed that for significant numbers of our clients, life has proved so difficult or traumatic that a retreat into alcohol has afforded some, albeit temporary relief from the pain and bad memories. Such situations have provided me with some of the saddest and intractable cases over the years and can have a literally sobering effect. As a society, we're simply not geared up to provide the necessary skilled counselling to tackle the underlying issues that can often lead to alcohol addiction. And to make matters worse, some people move onto alcohol as a replacement for heroin. 

There is of course a current lively debate about how to deal with the alcohol problem in this country and much speculation that it is mostly to do with cost. I don't agree. I think it's to do with education and as with matters to do with drugs, sex and relationships, should be a topic for discussion as early as possible in schools. It's interesting to reflect now that our history teacher wasn't being stupid in supposedly not noticing her pupils smuggling a few bottles of brown ale on to the coach when we went out for the day - she was helping us to learn a responsible attitude towards alcohol. Fat chance of that nowadays I guess. 
    

   
    

What's the Answer?

We know what the problem is. Communities up and down the country typically in de-industrialised areas that are suffering second and third generation structural unemployment as a result. Not surprisingly this has led to significant social problems such as drug and alcohol dependency, low academic achievement, anti-social behaviour and criminal activity.

Recent government reports confirm that a childs future is decided even before they set foot in a school, thus identifying that resources should be targetted at each child from a disadvantaged background as early as possible. However, in a period of financial constraint it remains to be seen if the coalition governments aspirations in this regard will be translated into effective delivery or not. I'm sure it's right, but not the whole answer and it will take time of course and will do nothing for the current 'lost' generation. It sort of reminds me of the idealism behind the introduction of the National Health Service and Welfare State post Second World War. We would now say it was naive to believe that 'free' medical care for everyone as part of the drive against the 'five great evils' would lead to a healthier nation and as a consequence lessening demands on the NHS. 

Funnily enough I think the answer might be connected to that much discussed, misunderstood and maligned Cameronian notion 'The Big Society.' Seeing as nobody seems to know what it means I might as well take a stab at an explanation. I think the answer we seek in doing something about our failing communities is as much about broadening peoples horizons as anything. Of course a degree of financial and physical security is important as indeed is basic numeracy and literacy, but I think what's really missing is exposure to a variety of positive experiences and opportunities that will stimulate a young person, broaden their horizons and help tease out their latent qualities. 

But hang on a minute, this is what schools are supposed to do isn't it? The trouble is they seem utterly fettered by the National Curriculum and other such bureaucratic nonsense that only serves to stifle innovation and flair. As a result the kids I'm talking about just give up at about age 13 and cause enough trouble to get permanently excluded. Of course there's no longer the escape route offered by scholarships to Grammar School for bright kids. What happened to the dynamic and innovative Detached Youth Service specifically designed to engage with disengaged kids? Went the same way as the buildings I suspect. In my town two centres built in the 1950's and 60's with donations from the public have been squandered by a disinterested Local Authority. There used to be boxing clubs, but of course they went as a result of political correctness as much as anything and good old fashioned church-based Scouting seems to have become the preserve of the middle classes only.

All these facilities and services and many more too numerous to mention used to provide avenues and opportunities for young people to learn and develop - to be inspired. Just two classic films spring to mind that serve to illustrate how positive experiences change lives, 'Kes' and 'Billy Elliot'. There are others like 'Brassed Off' or 'The Full Monty'' that demonstrate that in many ways it doesn't matter what the vehicle is, or for what age group - there just has to be something - an external stimulus that inspires and broadens horizons. But there has to be a structure and there has to be a catalyst, almost certainly a motivated individual or group. The trouble is for all sorts of reasons these people are few and far between and sadly getting less in my experience. Isn't the 'Big Society' about this sort of stuff? - (but due to bureaucratised as 'Community Champions' - yuck!)

Anyone who has watched any of the 'Secret Millionaire' programmes on channel 4 will know what I'm talking about. I find this to be genuinely gripping, potentially risky documentary-style tv at its best. Despite the gloomy picture I've painted, I'm always uplifted by the gems of voluntary groups and inspirational people that get discovered in each episode, doing fantastic work in disadvantaged communities, typically on a shoe-string. Just imagine what a bit of secure funding could achieve if harnessed to the whole 'Big Society' idea. 

I've just realised I haven't mentioned the probation service once. We used to be part of everything I've mentioned above because we used to be part of communities and used to be innovative. But now we just try and prevent re-offending from edge of town mega factories. It's a shame the 'Big Society' got invented too late for us.   

 

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.       

Macho Madness

I freely admit I stole today's headline from David Nutts new blogsite and a piece he's written on cannabis, having recently returned from a trip to New Zealand. He was shocked to discover that in NZ they imprison even more people than we do here and they remain unrelenting in their pointless 'war' against cannabis. You will recall that Professor Nutt was famously sacked by Home Secretary Alan Johnson in 2009 for having the temerity to question the governments decision to re-classify cannabis back up from class 'C' to class 'B'.

Now I'm no medical expert, but a quick scan of his entry on wikipedia tells me that this chap has impeccable credentials and when he speaks up, we really ought to be listening. Following his unceremonial ousting as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs along with several distinguished colleagues, he set up the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. This group have recently published a very provocative paper in the Lancet basically saying that alcohol is a highly dangerous drug, causes more harm than heroin and draws attention to the fact that vastly more resources are being put into treatment of drug addictions as opposed to alcohol. The report makes interesting comparisons of harm levels between different drugs both for users and other people and basically says the UK system of drug classification is outdated and misleading.

Over the years I've had dealings with many hundreds of people whose involvement with legal and illegal substances has brought them into the Criminal Justice System and facing a variety of offences ranging from murder, rape, assault and arson to criminal damage and breach of the peace. I would hazard a conservative guess that alcohol was involved in at least 75% of these cases. Cannabis never features and for that reason I have virtually ignored it in my dealings with clients. On the other hand the point I've repeatedly made is that if alcohol was discovered tomorrow, it would be completely illegal.

The trouble is that a rational discussion or debate on drug issues is sadly completely impossible in the UK and politicians simply dare not risk the wrath of the right-wing press. I notice that the item in yesterdays Guardian had attracted over 500 comments by 6.00pm. Anyway, hats off to the Prof for not giving up and relentlessly pointing out that it would be much more sensible and cheaper for society in the long run if drug policy was evidence based rather than politically influenced.

Alcohol

Problem drinkers in one form or another will represent a significant number of any probation officers caseload. As with many aspects of problematic human behaviour, the form it takes varies from individual to individual and the reasons are many and varied. I make this point because in my experience there is no magic silver bullet treatment and never likely to be. It will be no great surprise to learn that trying to deal with clients who are problem drinkers can be extremely problematic, time-consuming and it has to be said, profoundly depressing.

When I started out many problem drinkers who had been through the prison system were aware of Alcoholics Anonymous and for some joining a community AA group proved helpful. But many others found the whole 10 step 'hair shirt' total abstinence and quasi-religious atmosphere too difficult to cope with. I found that some responded to counselling, especially if underlying traumas had led to heavy drinking and yet others went down the medical route of in-patient detoxification at the regional addictions unit (a facility now long gone) and treatment with antabuse.

For those unfamiliar with this treatment, it is a medication taken daily and leads to a violent and unpleasant reaction if combined with alcohol. In the early days it was available as a slow release implant in order to pre-empt the opportunity of frustrating it's effect by the simple expediency of stopping the medication. Unfortunately I've known cases of clients 'digging' out the implant so desperate they had become for a drink. Alternatively it is possible to drink through the nauseous effects of antabuse if someone is really determined. As far as I know it has not been available as an implant on the NHS for some time. 

In more recent time a whole host of specialist alcohol treatment agencies have sprung up offering counselling, support and advice and to a great extent the old AA model has lost favour. However problem drinking is still very much with us and by general consensus is an increasing problem and one that has significantly changed in nature. My period in court as a CDO brought home to me just how prevalent the phenomenon of teenage binge-drinking at weekends has become in every UK town and city. Historically heavy drinking has always gone hand in hand with Friday and Saturday nights out, often leading to male violence in garrison towns or areas associated with heavy industry. What has changed in recent years with liberalisation of the licensing laws is the massive growth in young female binge drinking, the copying of male bad behaviour and the concept of 'pre-loading' with cheap alcohol before even getting into town.

What quickly became clear to me as a CDO is that many of our towns and cities have become virtual war zones in the evenings at weekends with the police and ambulance service barely able to cope with the resulting melee. The resulting effects of violence inevitably end up before the courts and much discussion as to whether a perpetrator has a drink problem or not. I'm still not sure as this binge drinking behaviour is so widespread, limited to weekends and often the individual is otherwise leading a normal life, happily employed and often horrified when confronted with cctv evidence. I don't think they have a drink problem in the normally accepted and historical sense, but clearly something has to be done to encourage a different drinking behaviour. If behaviour is learnt, it can be unlearnt I feel. 

It looks as if London wants to blaze the trail for a new experimental way of dealing with problem drinkers. Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse, respectively Mayor and Deputy Mayor want the government to sanction an American idea of enforced sobriety for some problem drinkers convicted of drink-related offences. The idea is to offer the option at court of compelling participants to undergo twice daily testing for alcohol at their own expense. Any positive readings would trigger a return to court and possible custodial sentence. The details haven't been finalised but could be combined with other conditions of a community order. The proponents seem keen on the idea of combining short custodial sentences, but this is not likely to meet with government approval given the current determination of reducing short sentences. Over all, I think the idea has some merit for a particular type of problem drinker, for example the motivated binge drinker, and is therefore worthy of a trial in my view.