Napo and Early Release Fiasco

Here we have Napo's take on it all, published yesterday:- 

ECSL - Napo's Position

The Ministerial announcements on Prison capacity are in the news regularly. From the outset we want to make it clear that Napo’s starting point for any discussion on prison overcrowding is that it is a tragedy.

Too often the focus is on one part of the unfolding crisis, but we believe it’s important to first acknowledge the sheer scale of what is happening. This is beyond even the terrible and degrading conditions individuals are imprisoned in while being denied the opportunity of rehabilitation, the impact on victims denied what they believed justice would be, as well as being placed at risk by this policy and the unbearable anxiety caused to the families of both prisoner and victim.

It's about something greater than the increased risks of physical violence to Prison staff or the levels of psychological harm caused to Probation staff pushed too far by the excessive workload they are subjected to by an employer that consistently fails us on even the most basic of their responsibilities – to not harm its workforce by their actions or inactions. And it’s also more than the evaporation of what little confidence members of the public must have in the criminal justice system, contributed to in no small part in this crisis as the reputational damage to the Probation and Prison Services that Politicians, through senior leaders in HMPPS inflict with each mis-step they take on this, as with so many other matters.

Time for a completely new approach to the problem

The crisis of prison overcrowding is one that’s been decades in the making, and for which previous Tory, Tory/Lib-Dem Coalition and Labour Governments all bear some level of responsibility. For too long, politicians have traded in simplistic arguments that misled the public, and not challenging the lies perpetrated by the media and have sought a quick fix to deeply complex problems. The failure of so many of the political class of one of the richest countries in the world over all this time to demonstrate sufficient courage and leadership to commit adequate resources to Probation and Prison Services over decade after decade has been truly shameful to witness.

Unfortunately, the most recent comments of the current Shadow Justice Secretary announcing an intention to attempt to ‘prison-build’ their way out of this abhorrent mess suggests that honest political leadership, evidence-based (or even reality-based) policymaking and a commitment to make generational changes for the good of the country aren’t seemingly going to be a feature of a likely incoming new Government, at least in terms of this policy.

Napo’s efforts to influence Early Release Schemes

The End of Custody Supervised Licence (ECSL) was introduced in October 2023. It has been apparent to us from the outset that the Government has chosen to prioritise the crisis of prison overcrowding over that of excessive Probation workloads. Nothing that has been done by HMPPS since that time has caused us to change our view. As it was a legislative change being driven forward by an elected Government our role has been limited to one of consultation rather than any form of negotiation with HMPPS. It is fair to reflect, and we’ve made these points clearly at every opportunity, that HMPPS have not consulted as often or in as sufficient detail as we would have expected. Through all this we’ve been informed and guided by the experiences of practitioners across a range of Probation work which is impacted by the ECSL scheme, and we want to take this opportunity to thank all the members who have raised this in their Branches or to Napo HQ for their contributions to this point. At the end of this message, we’ll say more on how we see this moving forward from this point.

Napo have been consistent in representing member’s interests and Probation’s identity by repeatedly raising concerns over the increased workload, assault on professional judgement and the obvious increased risks to the public, and individuals (including some of the most vulnerable in our society), that the ECSL scheme represents. We’ve done this in numerous face-to-face meetings with HMPPS senior leaders as well as written communications. Our view remains that in too many cases it is simply neither feasible or safe to bring forward many of the Risk Management Plans that will be in place – and will have been for some time – for the individuals involved at such short notice.

The problems around ECSL

Napo have set out a range of practical issues faced by you as practitioners when forced to do this which, by way of only a few illustrative examples, include: a lack of Approved Premises bed spaces, or other accommodation, available for the revised release date; an inability to rearrange substance misuse, health (especially mental health) and other appointments (e.g. state benefits) previously arranged for day of release; the increased likelihood that a supervising officer will be unavailable to conduct the post-release induction appointment due to other pre-existing work commitment on the revised release date; an inability to make alternative arrangements for transport between releasing prisons and the home area, meaning more risky modes of transport are required on the revised release date than would have been used otherwise. Napo have made clear the ultimate responsibility which HMPPS hold for this scheme, including the consequences that they obviously failed to anticipate, such as: where the demand for rapid action to release an individual increases the likelihood of HMPPS breaching the part of the Victim’s Code relating to pre-release notification of information to some victims.

Napo have also pressed HMPPS to produce evidence for the feasibility and safety of this policy while stressing our member’s opposition to it. For example, we’ve asked for data on the amounts of ECSL releases to each Region and Probation Delivery Unit or on the numbers of recalls, Serious Further Offences and deaths of people subject to ECSL as well as a range of information on applications for exemptions made by practitioners. HMPPS initially denied holding such data but have since claimed that what they might have is subject to a lengthy verification process which would mean that information would be released much later, potentially annually (i.e., October 2024). Napo understands this was in line with an earlier comment made by a Minister in Parliament. Very recently we have received information that at least some of this data has in fact been shared with senior regional leaders and we will be following this up urgently with HMPPS to request access to this, using data protection legislation if needed.

Media activity

In addition to the internal work Napo has undertaken, we’ve also sought to publicise the flawed ECSL scheme in the media, and it’s clear that over the last three weeks this has seen significantly increased interest. A number of interviews for various media outlets – television, print, radio and online – have been undertaken by Napo Officials to follow up on our earlier contacts with journalists where our position on this scheme, and our range of concerns, have been shared. While we cannot control the decisions of media outlets to then run these interviews, or publish articles, we’ve also been active on social media to stress our opposition to ECSL and the reasons for this.

In Parliament

Napo also work particularly closely with a cross-party group of politicians who form the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group (Justice Unions Parliamentary Group (@JusticeUnions) / X (twitter.com)) and we’d encourage members to view their work to see the results of this collaboration. Here is an example of some of the exchanges that took place this week: https://x.com/justiceunions/status/1767570456108826632 these following the Lord Chancellors Written Statement https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-03-11/hcws332

In our close working with the JUPG, Napo can make significant contributions on how the Government is held to account in Parliament, putting forward issues for public debate on the criminal justice system and promoting the interests of members. As you would expect, we’ve been sharing our concerns about ECSL with the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group since October 2023 and our work with them has only increased as the scheme has been expanded.

Other developments around ‘early release’

In terms of other ‘early release’ matters, members can be assured that Napo have also made clear to HMPPS our concerns about the impact on both members as well as the public from the imminent introduction of an expansion to eligibility for the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme and the increased use of Fixed Term Recalls for those people serving custodial sentences of less than 12 months. Following a similar approach as ECSL we’ve set out how these changes will negatively impact on practitioners and your ability to do your jobs effectively (providing examples of this to support our arguments); requested data such as forecasts and equality assessments of the proposals; and offered practical suggestions as to how the full force of this additional work on members could be mitigated, for instance by suspending ESCL for periods of time in those Regions where an increased number of people are being released on HDC.

Operation Protect

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

How members can help

As we continue our work on your behalf on ECSL, as well as the other ‘early release’ schemes, we continue to need your support and contributions to inform our response to HMPPS. For that reason, and to attempt to provide a single point of contact for any experiences you might wish to share, can members please contact your Link Officials or use the following email address if they want to share any of these with us as your trade union representatives info@napo.org.uk

You may also want to make clear in the subject line of your email that this relates to ‘ECSL’, ‘HDC’ or Fixed Term Recall’ (or a combination of these). Members should share their specific experiences of these schemes, and how this has impacted on them and others, do not include the personal details, or identifiers, of any of those you are working with. We hope, after ensuring all are properly anonymised and cannot be traced to a particular individual or location, to use these experiences in discussions with the employer and others to better publicise the huge challenges faced by many of our members.

We need to stress that members must not, under any circumstances, breach the rules issued by the employer on data protection, confidentiality or information sharing.

Please look out for further news on the key issues being faced by our members. Meanwhile, thank you for taking the time to read this detailed commentary on our work so far on ECSL.   

Ian Lawrence          Ben Cockburn
General Secretary  Acting National Chair

13th March 2024

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Thanks go to the reader for pointing me in the direction of this from Wales Online:-

The 'horrendous' reality of being a probation officer

'The pressure on staff is unbearable some days. Morale is horrendous at the moment. I don't know a single person here who works the 37.5 hours a week they're meant to'

A furious whistleblower says changes to the crisis-hit probation service will make the public less safe as well as "insulting" victims of crime. WalesOnline can reveal that offenders under suspended sentences and community orders will no longer need to see probation officers during the last third of their orders – the latest cutback to a service that for years has been stretched almost to the point of breaking.

Justice secretary Alex Chalk announced this week that some prisoners could be released up to two months early due to jail overcrowding in England and Wales but this will mean a heavier burden on the probation officers monitoring them in the community. In an attempt to reduce pressure on the chronically understaffed service a new policy was announced on Monday in an internal video meeting. Staff were told the UK Government had signed off on offenders in England and Wales no longer needing to see probation officers during the last third of their suspended sentences or community orders, which are up to three years long.

An experienced probation officer in south Wales told us: "This will outrage courts and victims of crime, especially domestic violence victims. They will feel even more let down by the system. People are placed on orders of certain lengths for a reason." He pointed out domestic violence offenders are meant to have two years of programme work. The new approach, he fears, will mean issues around drugs, mental health, and housing advocacy are not fully addressed. The government says the change will not affect "the most serious offenders" but the whistleblower told us that offenders labelled 'medium risk' – who are already supervised less – account for most of the serious offences committed while under an order.

The whistleblower works in a south Wales team that is little more than half the size it was in 2007. "The pressure on staff is unbearable some days," he said. "Morale is horrendous at the moment. I don't know a single person here who works the 37.5 hours a week they're meant to. Staff take their work home with them, they work on evenings and weekends. Until about 2012 you couldn't work with a sex offender until you had two years' experience. Now newly-qualified trainees are given sex offender cases."

The increased pressure has been accompanied by worse pay leading to "woeful" recruitment and retention problems. Recently our source learned that more than a third of staff in his team were looking for new jobs. He said: "In the past 15 years of wage freezes and below-inflation pay settlements staff have seen their pay devalued by over 25% in real terms. I didn’t have a pay rise for over 10 years. If someone can work in Aldi for £38,000 a year they are not going to train for a year to work with the most dangerous people in society for £32,000."

While under an order high-risk offenders tend to be seen by probation officers weekly, medium-risk offenders fortnightly, and low-risk offenders monthly. If they are involved in a "reportable incident" – very often domestic violence – the probation service would call the offender and decide whether the next face-to-face meeting should be brought forward. The whistleblower says it is unclear what will now happen in those circumstances when offenders are in the last third of their order.

When courts impose community orders and suspended sentences they often include a certain number of rehabilitation sessions. How will the new policy affect those sentences? "I think it's likely to mean those sessions are front-ended to the first two-thirds of the order, putting even more pressure on staff," said the whistleblower, adding that they already "regularly" find themselves terminating orders without all of the rehab sessions being completed. Offenders often miss appointments but if more than half of sessions have been carried out the order can be ended. The whistleblower fears the final-third policy will only add to the number of incomplete programmes.

According to figures from last year the probation service was 1,700 officers short of its target of 6,160. In 2014 many senior staff left after the then-justice secretary Chris Grayling's disastrous part-privatisation of the service. It was renationalised seven years later following a series of damning reports by parliamentary committees and watchdogs.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We recognise the pressures facing our hardworking probation staff which is why we are making changes to make sure they can continue to deliver high-quality supervision in the community. These measures, alongside our £155m investment in the Probation Service each year, will reduce caseloads and mean staff can maximise supervision of the most serious offenders."

Operation Panic 2

Following on from the blog post 'Operation Panic' last week, I understand suitably qualified HQ staff will be hearing very soon of their urgent reassignment to the prison estate for OASys re-jigging. Sir Bob Neil has also had a reply to his letter from the MoJ regarding their questions about the prison capacity crisis. (I've corrected the spelling mistakes.)

Dear Sir Bob, 

CHANGES TO HOME DETENTION CURFEW (HDC) 

Thank you for your letter of 7 March about our plans for HDC and current capacity constraints in prisons. You asked a number of questions which I deal with in turn below. 

Home Detention Curfew 

How the proposed changes will affect (a) the number of people who will be released on HDC and (b) the size of the prison population? 

The HDC population is determined by a combination of both how many offenders are released onto HDC and the length of time they spend on HDC. The Statutory Instrument we have laid seeks to extend the length of time people spend on HDC but it does not add to the cohort of offenders released – so would increase the HDC population, by 450 on its own. Alongside the legislation, we are reducing the cohort of offenders released by adding specified offences linked to domestic abuse – such as stalking, harassment and coercive control - to the list of offences that make someone presumed unsuitable for HDC. This changes will reduce releases and, on its own, would reduce the HDC population. 

While fewer offenders will be released on HDC going forwards, after a temporary increase immediately on implementation, the net result is that the HDC Population grows because those who are released remain on HDC for longer – and the increase in the HDC population caused by the longer time-period on HDC is greater than the reduction in HDC population caused by the reduced number of individuals released on HDC. The net result of both changes is that the HDC population will grow by 300, meaning the prison population will shrink by 300. 

Whether the changes are part of a wider policy to reduce the pressure on the prison estate?

We are protecting the public by excluding specified offenders and tightening the risk assessment, which will reduce the number of prisoners released on HDC. We are looking to make the best use of an existing scheme and the technology available to help improve reintegration and rehabilitation in the community. We have wanted to make this change since 2019 but the timing was not right as we were then focused on immediate measures to tackle serious sexual and violent offenders, including terrorists, and have since changed the law to ensure these offenders serve longer in prison. We again laid a similar SI in 2020 but withdrew it so we could concentrate on tackling the impact of Covid on prisons, staff and the NHS. 

What steps the Ministry of Justice is taking to ensure that probation services are sufficiently prepared to support the initial spike in releases on HDC? 

We estimate that the impact of the HDC measures planned is to add a total of 300 lower risk offenders to the overall caseload of offenders under Probation supervision in the community in England and Wales which, at 30 September 2022, stood at 172,253. While this is a relatively modest addition, each offender will need to be managed and the Probation Service is currently exploring the best way to absorb the additional caseload and the additional assessments that will be required during the implementation phase. Following implementation, the number of releases and, therefore, assessments will fall. 

Protecting the public will always be our primary concern, and to that end we have unified the Probation Service and greater focus on quality and outcomes has been placed at the centre of the unified Probation Service National Standards and performance framework. We have injected extra funding of more than £155 million a year to deliver more robust supervision, reduce caseloads and recruit thousands more staff to keep the public safer. We have recruited a record-breaking 2,500 trainee probation officers over the last two years, and we plan to recruit a further 1,500 by March 2023. 

Whether the Government remains committed to the original policy intention of the HDC scheme that most offenders eligible for the scheme should be released? 

Yes, we are. HDC is a targeted scheme, and it is right that we limit it to those who are suitable, but it allows the particular cohort of offenders who are eligible for scheme and suitable for release to benefit from a managed transition between prison and life in the community. We know that for certain offenders the experience of being monitored via an electronic tag in the community can help deal with the negative behaviours that lead to re-offending, allowing offenders to focus on getting into work and back on the straight and narrow. 

Prison Capacity 

How additional prisoners have been accommodated in prisons that exceeded capacity?

Prisons have not exceeded their operational capacity. Occasionally, for operational reasons, the reported prison population is slightly higher than the number of people physically housed in the prison (for example when prisoners are receiving overnight hospital treatment under escort in the community). At the end of January the published population for HMP Liverpool was 821 against an operational capacity of 820 (but with one authorised absence), and HMP Preston was 681 against an operational capacity of 680 (with two authorised absences). Neither therefore breached their operational capacity. 

We regularly assess ways to manage demand on prisons and continue to take action where needed. We have implemented a suite of measures to reduce the demand pressures on the system, including increasing (within safe limits) the number of prisoners held in the existing estate, and bringing non-critical maintenance cells back online. 

Normal operation of the estate involves a degree of cell-sharing, but we have increased this in response to capacity pressures. The maximum viable level has been determined through a robust ‘capacity challenge’ process, set and agreed through HMPPS governance, that identifies the maximum contingency spaces that can be delivered while maintaining levels of safety and decency. A Capacity Challenge Process was established in late 2021 to identify safe and sustainable opportunities to maximise use of the prison estate. Given that several of the factors involved are dynamic, the Capacity Challenge Process was then refreshed in December 2022 to provide an up-to-date position. 

Whether it is the case, as reported, that all non-essential maintenance of prison cells has been halted? 

We have paused all non-critical maintenance work but we are continuing to invest in critical maintenance, including our programme of essential fire safety improvements, to ensure that we can keep as much capacity as possible online without cells falling into disrepair. The safety and decency of our prisoners is paramount. We continually monitor prison conditions, and take places on and offline depending on safety, stability, staffing levels and maintenance needs. 

How many prisoners have been placed in police cells under Operation Safeguard to date? 

In total, we have used police cells on 531 occasions since Operation Safeguard was first used on 20th February 2023. Prisoners are held in operation safeguard cells for one night and prioritised for movement the next day (or Monday if they are held on a weekend). Therefore, nightly usage varies and on 15 March 2023, 15 cells were in use. 

Given delays in the prison building programme, what steps the Government is taking through Gold Command and other means to ensure demand on the prison estate does not outstrip available capacity while the outstanding new prisons are built? 

We are using every available contingency option within the limits of safety and security. We have taken action to provide immediate capacity in the existing prison estate, as set out above. Since the end of September 2022, we have provided an additional 1,400 adult male prison places and we are continuing to add places as part of our commitment to deliver 20,000 additional prison places. 

I trust the above is helpful and would be happy to address further questions Committee members might have. 

Damian Hinds 

Minister for Prisons and Probation

Raab's Chickens Roost

So it came to pass, just as we discussed on Saturday, with chickens coming home to roost for Dominic Raab, firstly the High Court declaring his meddling in the affairs of the Parole Board to have no legal basis, and then Amy Rees duly telling staff they are urgently required on the prison front-line. This from the Telegraph:- 

Dominic Raab’s parole board reforms may have set dangerous prisoners free

High Court judges found Lord Chancellor’s rule change to ban MoJ staff’s opinions on releasing high-profile offenders was unlawful

Dangerous prisoners may have been wrongly set free because of a botched attempt by Dominic Raab to reform parole board hearings, the High Court has found. The Lord Chancellor changed the rules in July last year in an effort to ban Ministry of Justice (MoJ) staff from expressing a view on whether offenders should be set free from prison.

Raab wanted the power to offer a “single Secretary of State view” in high-profile cases, without the risk of being contradicted by prison or probation staff in their expert reports and evidence. However, judges in the High Court on Wednesday found the rule change was unlawful and that it may have led to prisoners being released by mistake.

In a highly critical ruling, Lady Justice Macur and Mr Justice Chamberlain found MoJ guidance from July, which was updated in October, estimated it covered more than 12,000 Parole Board hearings.

“Its promulgation may well have resulted in prisoners being released who would not otherwise have been released and in prisoners not being released who would otherwise have been released,” said the two judges. They warned it could also have exposed staff who gave evidence to parole board hearings to contempt of court accusations because of their legal responsibility to give “honest” evidence to the board.

‘Party line’

Raab’s rule said reports on the prospect of prisoner release should “present all relevant information and a factual assessment pertaining to risk”, but “must not present a view or recommendation as to the prisoner’s suitability for release or move to open prison conditions”.

Staff were told not to give their opinions, and were handed a series of example phrases to avoid including: “My assessment of the likely outcome should Mr/Ms X be released is….”

The judges, presiding over a legal challenge by two serving prisoners to the changes in Parole Board procedure, said the reforms would not have worked as intended by Raab, and suggested there had been a misunderstanding of how Parole Board hearings – which are quasi-judicial – actually work.

“As with an expert in court proceedings, the value of any opinion evidence given by an HM Prison and Probation Service staff member in proceedings before the Board depends on its being the witness’s honest and candid professional opinion, expressed in the witness’s own words”, they said.

“Any suggestion that the witness was tailoring their evidence so as to be consistent with their employer’s view would substantially reduce the weight that could be given to it. The suggestion that the Secretary of State can properly insist on a ‘party line’ on the ultimate issue seems to us to emanate from a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of these judicial proceedings and the role of professional witnesses in them.”

‘No legal basis’

Finding the rule change was “unlawful”, the judges concluded: “One of the Secretary of State’s principal purposes in making it was to suppress or enable the suppression of relevant opinion evidence which differed from his own view in cases where he expressed one. That purpose was improper.

“The decision to make the rule was an attempt by a party to judicial proceedings to influence to his own advantage the substance of the evidence given by witnesses employed or engaged by him and an impermissible interference with a judicial process. The fact that the attempt failed because the drafters did not achieve his purpose does not save the decision from being unlawful.”

The judges said there was “no legal basis” for an instruction to staff not to answer Parole Board questions about their ultimate view on a case, opening up the possibility that Raab’s directions could have “induced” staff to commit contempt of court. Judges will now hear submissions from parties in the case on what to do next, as a consequence of the unlawfulness found and the possible contempt of court issue.

The Ministry of Justice said there was no evidence the policy led to wrongful releases. A spokesman added: “This is a disappointing result and we are carefully considering our legal options to ensure we are able to press ahead as intended. The Government is committed to ensuring that our parole system functions properly to protect the public and keep dangerous offenders behind bars. Our Parole reforms will be brought forward soon to further put public protection at the heart of the system.”

--oo00oo--

This from the Daily Mail:-

'From one crisis to another': Probation workers will be redeployed from Whitehall to prisons due to staffing crisis

Civil servants at the probation service's HQ are being redeployed to work in prisons because of a staffing crisis. The department's chief has written to senior managers saying they must hand over 5 per cent of their Whitehall workers from today.

Labour claimed the move, which would involve around 90 staff members, could see 'more dangerous offenders left to walk the streets unsupervised'.

It follows a series of reports by the probation watchdog that uncovered sub-standard work in high-profile cases, including the murder of law graduate Zara Aleena.

An email from Amy Rees, director general of HM Prisons and Probation Service, said: 'Given the continued capacity issues across the prison estate and associated staffing pressures, I am writing to request your support in releasing HQ staff to the front line to help with the mitigating actions to address this ongoing issue.'

She added in the message, sent last week: 'I am asking you all to immediately identify 5 per cent of your staff to be released to assist the front line. Staff identified will be directed to temporarily move to priority front-line roles. If these numbers do not meet the demand, this ask could increase to 10 per cent.'

On Monday this week, a follow-up email from Ian Barrow, executive director of the Ministry of Justice's probation workforce programme, said some of those reallocated could work remotely but added: 'There will be an expectation for some staff to be physically deployed to prisons.'

Labour justice spokesman Steve Reed said: 'The public will be rightly worried that with staff being diverted, more dangerous offenders could be left to walk the streets unsupervised. Our probation services are in chaos after 13 years of Conservative mismanagement, with [Justice Secretary] Dominic Raab lurching from one crisis to another. The service has been left with a shortage of probation staff facing unmanageable workloads and rock- bottom morale.'

A probation source said of the redeployment: 'It is absolutely shocking that we had no advance warning that this was coming.' Officers with experience of working in jails are being prioritised for the scheme but it is not a requirement, internal emails said.

Jails in England and Wales are full – with 84,137 inmates at the end of last week. Ministers have already launched an emergency scheme – Operation Safeguard – to allow hundreds of convicts to be kept in police station cells rather than prisons. Yesterday a report from the probation watchdog warned criminals were being freed without adequate oversight because probation teams had too few employees.

Justin Russell, chief inspector of probation, yesterday slammed the service for failing to protect the public from released criminals. He highlighted 'disappointing' findings warning that efforts to assess risks posed by criminals 'fell well short of our expectations'. The report noted the probation service was working with a 30 per cent staff shortfall, which meant officers were overloaded. This led to 'superficial' assessments being made of offenders.

In January, Mr Russell published two damning reports that found crucial failings in how killers Jordan McSweeney and Damian Bendall were handled by probation. Predator McSweeney, described as a 'ticking timebomb', was left free to kill aspiring lawyer Miss Aleena, 35.

Mr Russell said McSweeney should have been recalled to prison six days before the attack in east London and could have been back in his cell by the time of the murder if staff had followed procedures. Another report scrutinised failures in the way Bendall was supervised before he murdered three children and his pregnant partner.

An HM Prison and Probation Service spokesman said: 'We are temporarily moving around 90 qualified staff from desk-based roles to help frontline colleagues in prisons and probation.'

--oo00oo--

This from InsideTime explains some of the background to 'Operation Panic' :- 

Prisoners are to be let out of jail up to six months before their release date, in a new early release scheme which will help to tackle prison overcrowding.

The expansion of the Home Detention Curfew (HDC) scheme will extend the period which prisoners can spend at home, wearing an electronic tag, from 135 days to 180 days at the end of their time in custody. Officials believe the change will free up between 400 and 600 prison places.

It means that someone sentenced to four years for burglary, who at present would serve one year and seven-and-half-months in custody, could in future serve only one year and six months. The reform, which requires a change in the law before it can take effect, was set out in a draft Statutory Instrument laid in Parliament early in February, without publicity. It is scheduled to come into force on June 6.

In a letter to the House of Commons Justice Committee explaining the change, Prisons Minister Damian Hinds said that it was intended to promote rehabilitation. However, an impact assessment published by the Ministry of Justice acknowledges that “an additional benefit may be that by reducing demand for prison places, it will reduce crowding and improve prison conditions for both offenders and staff”.

At the same time, eligibility for the HDC scheme will be restricted so that people convicted of particular offences linked to domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment and coercive control, are no longer eligible. People convicted of sexual offences, and those serving sentences of longer than four years, were already ineligible. The estimate for the number of prison places which will be freed up takes account of this new curb.

The move comes as jails are overflowing, with the Operation Safeguard scheme to hold remand prisoners in police cells overnight starting to be used in three English regions in February and being extended across England and Wales in March. The Prison Governors’ Association has warned that it will take legal action if the Government tries to squeeze more prisoners into existing jails.

According to the impact assessment, “our best estimate suggests this option will increase the HDC population by up to 450 offenders when it reaches steady state”. It goes on: “The current maximum period that an offender may spend in the community on HDC is 135 days. Extending this period to a maximum of 180 days (six months) will provide further opportunities for offenders to prepare for the transition from custody to supervision under licence in the community, while subject to strict monitoring conditions … It is very unlikely that the impacts forecast by this change – around 400-600 reduction in prison place demand – will lead to the closure of prison cells, wings or entire prisons.”

HDC was introduced by Tony Blair’s Labour government in 1999, when the maximum period was set at 60 days. This increased to 90 days in 2002 and to 135 days in 2003. At the time, the Conservatives opposed the policy, calling it evidence that Labour were soft on crime. In 2000, then-Conservative shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe called the policy “disastrous”, telling MPs: “When it was put through Parliament, we described it as wrong and we opposed the early release of prisoners under the scheme.”

Faced with forecasts that the prison population could rise from around 80,000 to 100,000 over five years, then-justice secretary Robert Buckland put forward an identical proposal to increase the HDC limit from 135 days to 180 days in early 2020. However, the plan was withdrawn shortly after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, which saw a fall in prisoner numbers due chiefly to court closures. It has now been revived by Buckland’s successor, Dominic Raab.

The number of prisoners in England and Wales has jumped by 1,700 since the start of January, and is forecast by the Government to carry on rising by 5,000 a year over the next two years. Part of the reason for the increase is a new law introduced by the Government which means that many people serving sentences longer than four years must now spend two-thirds of the time in custody, instead of half.

To be eligible for early release on HDC, prisoners must be serving a sentence of between three months and four years, and they must have a suitable home address where they will be monitored via the tag. Some prisoners without a home to go to may be provided with housing by the Community Accomodation Service. Besides people convicted of sexual offences, other categories of prisoner who are excluded from the scheme include people convicted of terrorism offences and foreign nationals liable for deportation

Operation Panic

Irrespective of 'Operation Safeguard' having been triggered and now operating in certain police areas, it's rapidly sunk in that even all 400 police cells aren't going to touch the surface of the impending crisis of prison capacity. It's generally regarded as safe and expedient to operate with headroom of around 1,800, but that has evaporated with talk of it being as low as 425. 

I'm getting news from a number of sources that a whole flock of chickens are coming home to roost for Dominic Raab at HMPPS and MoJ HQ. Due to his messianic desire to seek public approval for locking up more people for longer and not letting people either progress to open conditions or gain parole, HM Prisons are basically now full and there is an emergency plan being hatched for the rapid re-categorisation, ROTL or release on HDC of as many people as possible. 

So, an urgent call is due to go out to get as many suitably-qualified probation staff re-deployed immediately to crisis manage the task and urgently assist HM Prison Service with mass OASys re-jigging. This of course would somewhat make a mockery of all the 'protecting the public' rhetoric if the criteria are just 'adjusted' in order to make the prison population fit the space available. We have all been made aware that tragic consequences can flow from risk being adjusted to suit operational need. 

Emergency re-deploying a rumoured 5% of staff will also have a knock-on effect in terms of other work not being able to be undertaken. It will add yet more stress to an already struggling and under-staffed Probation Service with all the inherent effects that inevitably flow. There is very serious concern that should not enough volunteers be forthcoming, staff will be directed.  

--oo00oo--

This from InsideTime on 7th March regarding Operation Safeguard:- 

Operation Safeguard extends across the country

Emergency measures to hold prisoners in police cells when jails are full are being extended this week, the Government has announced.

Prisons Minister Damian Hinds told the House of Commons last week that Operation Safeguard will come into use throughout England and Wales from Monday, March 6. The move follows a surge in the prison population, which has risen by 1,700 since the start of January.

Police forces nationwide have been asked to set aside 400 police cells to hold prisoners on a short-term basis. On February 20, the cells began to be used in three police regions – North-East, North-West and Central. During the first week of the operation, 83 prisoners were held in this way. It is thought that most were remand prisoners, detained for only one night ahead of a court appearance.

Operation Safeguard was last used in 2008 under the then-Labour government. Today’s Conservative Government has pledged to build 20,000 prison places at a cost of £3.75 billion, to cope with a forecast growth in the prison population from the current level of 83,800 to an estimated 94,400 by March 2025. However, three proposed new jails are still awaiting planning permission, while prison governors are warning against any move to squeeze more prisoners into already-crowded existing jails.

Hinds told the House of Commons on February 28: “On Monday 20 February, the first Operation Safeguard places became available for use in the North-East, North-West and in the Central Police regions. As of Friday 24 February, 83 prisoners have been held in Operation Safeguard places in police stations in the North-East, North-West and in the Central Police regions and have since been moved into prison. On Monday 20 February, HMPPS gave the Police the required 14 days’ notice to activate Operation Safeguard in remaining regions (for use from Monday 6 March).

“HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has engaged with the National Police Chiefs Council and relevant forces frequently on Operation Safeguard, and before police cells were used to house prisoners HMPPS issued clear operational guidance to staff and partners, and remain in regular contact.”

--oo00oo--

On the same day Bob Neill MP sought clarification from Raab regarding his Parole Board meddling:-

Rt Hon. Dominic Raab MP 

Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice 

By email only 7 March 2023 

Dear Dominic, 

Thank you for your letter of 30 January following up your evidence to us in November. The Committee recently took evidence from the Prison Reform Trust (PRT) during which moves to open conditions for prisoners serving life or IPP sentences was discussed. I am writing to seek clarification and further information. In your letter of 30 January you stated that: 

In 2022-23 the Parole Board has made 261 recommendations for moves to open conditions, 13 of which have been accepted, with 218 awaiting a final decision, by Ministers (or an official with delegated responsibility). 

However, in a response to an FOI request made by the PRT, dated ten days earlier, 20 January 2023, the MoJ said: 

Between 140 recommendations for transfer to open conditions were considered by the Secretary of State (or his officials) between 6 June 2022 and 30 November 2022, with 109 rejected under the policy in place to 6 June 2022, and 17 rejected under the new policy introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 6 June 2022. 

14 recommendations for transfer were accepted under the policy in place to 6 June 2022 with none accepted under the new policy between 6 June 2022 and 30 November 2022, though recommendations made under the new test have been considered since that date. 

I would be grateful if you could set out the reasons for the different figures in the two responses. 

I would also be grateful if you could set out:

• How many spaces there were in the open estate, and how many of these were vacant (a) in the most recent period for which information is available, and (b) as at the start of 2022; 

• How many people serving a life or IPP sentence have committed a serious offence while absconding from an open setting in each of the last three years; 

• How many of the decisions taken in 2022-23 to date on whether to accept Parole Board recommendations for moves to open conditions have been made (a) directly by Ministers and (b) by officials, and which posts those officials hold. 

I would be grateful for a response by 23 March. 

Yours sincerely, 

Sir Robert Neill MP 

Chair Justice Committee

--oo00oo--

It's worth noting that such is the panic at MoJ HQ, Magistrates were quietly stripped of their increased sentencing powers yesterday. This from the Guardian:-

Magistrates ‘incredibly disappointed’ as sentencing powers scaled back

Powers had been doubled less than a year ago to tackle backlog in courts and cut prison overcrowding.

Sentencing powers for magistrates have been scaled back less than a year after they were doubled in an effort to tackle the courts backlog.

In May, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) announced magistrates in England and Wales would be able to hand out jail sentences of up to a year for a single offence – up from the previous maximum of six months – as part of efforts to deal with the number of criminal cases waiting to be heard. But on Friday the government department confirmed the plan would be paused. Although it said the measures could be brought back in future if needed.

The Magistrates Association said it was “incredibly disappointed” at the decision – which it said was after efforts to cut prison overcrowding – and warned it would “slow down justice”.

The Criminal Bar Association (CBA), which represents barristers, previously criticised the plan and said it could increase the risk of people being jailed for short sentences, piling further pressure on prisons.

Last week, it emerged criminals could be spared jail to avoid adding strain on prisons that are almost full. Senior judges reportedly ruled courts should take into account overcrowding in prisons when deciding whether to jail criminals. It comes after the government announced plans – known as Operation Safeguard – to hold some prisoners in the north of England in police cells to try to cut “acute and sudden” overcrowding in jails.

The Magistrates Association said: 

“The extension of magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months is something we had long campaigned for as a vital means of ensuring speedier justice for all. It was succeeding – delivering faster results for victims, witnesses and defendants. This new statutory instrument is likely to slow down justice. It highlights the importance of a well-resourced justice system that can cope with the volume of cases considered by the courts. We have been assured that the pause is temporary, and we will be urging the government to restore magistrates’ extended powers as soon as possible. To not do so would further erode magistrates’ already low morale and may well result in resignations at a time when the government is actively seeking to boost the number of sitting magistrates. We await confirmation of a date for a formal review of the statutory instrument.”

An MoJ spokesperson said: 

“We thank the magistrates for all their hard work to help us bring down the backlog following the pandemic and ensure victims get the justice they deserve. Increasing their sentencing powers was one of many measures introduced to help address the impact of the pandemic on the criminal justice system, but we have always retained the flexibility for this to be changed as needed. We continue to make sure those who commit the most serious offences are put behind bars for longer.”

--oo00oo--

Finally, as mentioned above, the Judiciary have started taking the prison overcrowding situation into account as outlined in the following recent Judgment:- 

18. A further exceptional factor arises from the fact that the appellant was sentenced at a time of very high prison population. On 30 November 2022 the Minister of State made a statement in Parliament announcing Operation Safeguard. The Government thereby requested the use of 400 police cells to hold people who were remanded in custody or serving prison sentences in the adult male prisons. He explained that this was because "a surge in offenders is coming through the criminal justice system, placing capacity pressure on adult male prisons in particular." On 5 December 2022 Parliament was informed that it was not possible to estimate the duration of the protocol.

20. On 24 February 2023 the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the Lord Chief Justice saying:-

"You will appreciate that operating very close to prison capacity will have consequences for the conditions in which prisoners are held. More of them will be in crowded conditions while in custody, have reduced access to rehabilitative programmes, as well as being further away from home (affecting the ability for family visits). Prisoners held in police cells under Operation Safeguard will not have access to the full range of services normally offered in custody, including rehabilitative programmes.". 

22. The judge in this case did not refer to this consideration, and he is obviously not to be criticised for that, given the chronology set out above. We have concluded that there were strong arguments for suspending the sentence in this exceptional case, for the reasons we have given. Any doubt we may have had on that issue is resolved by this additional factor which we do take into account in dealing with this appeal. This factor will principally apply to shorter sentences because a significant proportion of such sentences is likely to be served during the time when the prison population is very high. It will only apply to sentences passed during this time. We have identified above the starting point for the relevance of this consideration for sentencing, which we take to be the implementation of Operation Safeguard 14 days after 6 February 2023. Sentencing courts will now have an awareness of the impact of the current prison population levels from the material quoted in this judgment and can properly rely on that. It will be a matter for government to communicate to the courts when prison conditions have returned to a more normal state.

23. Accordingly, we quash the sentence of 6 months' imprisonment and substitute a suspended sentence order for 6 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. Given the time which the appellant has spent in prison, we do not impose an unpaid work requirement. Nor do we impose any other requirements, given his satisfactory conduct during his 18 months on licence between July 2020 and January 2022.

--oo00oo--

Postscript

The Judgment is worth reading in full and particularly in order to take note of this:-  

7. There was no pre-sentence report, but there was a letter from a probation officer which stated that the appellant had complied fully with all aspects of his licence, had engaged well with all rehabilitative work, had completed sessions on consequential thinking, which enabled him to gain insight into behaviours and their impact, and had been polite, compliant and a pleasure to supervise.

17. However, in the present case, there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation. With the exception of the present offence, the appellant's response to the sentence imposed in January 2019 has been very positive. By the time he was sentenced for the present offence, he had completed his licence period for the earlier offence and had received the very positive report from his probation officer to which we have referred. The judge said this:-

"I accept that there is a realistic prospect of rehabilitation, indeed on the face of it you have rehabilitated yourself."

Bravo!

Prison Crisis - MoJ Economical With Truth

You've got to hand it to the Guardian, they're really doing a good job reporting on all aspects of the mounting criminal justice crisis and over the weekend, published two articles highlighting the dire prison situation. Here's the first:-  

Are Britain’s prisons facing a meltdown?

Few in government can now deny that our jail system is in severe crisis. Yet no one seems to want to tackle it

It is highly likely that Khader Ahmed Saleh felt fear in the weeks before he was murdered. And if he did, the wiry young father from London’s tight-knit Somali community would not have been alone. In a recent survey, more than two-thirds of his fellow inmates inside Wormwood Scrubs prison admitted feeling unsafe. That finding was published weeks before Saleh was stabbed to death on the afternoon of 31 January.

Last Thursday Saleh’s family and friends assembled outside the west London prison, demanding answers in relation to another violent tragic episode inside the UK penal estate; one that has left three inmates charged with murder. As they protested and mourned, the distinctive Victorian towers of Wormwood Scrubs loomed large. Behind its high, weathered brick walls, living conditions have plummeted to a level which should shame a wealthy 21st-century society.

According to a report by the chief inspector of prisons published 53 days before Saleh, 25, was murdered, rats and cockroaches routinely gorge on litter dropped from broken windows into the prison yard. Conditions in the Victorian-era C wing, where Saleh died, were so chaotic that food routinely ran out and inmates survived on “mountain survival” dried-food packs.

Those who have observed Britain’s prison estate at close quarters have been uniformly shocked by what they have witnessed and what they have been told. Peter Clarke, a methodical, down-to-earth detective who once ran Scotland Yard’s Counter Terrorism Command, was asked by the Ministry of Justice in 2016 to investigate the prison estate. He notes as a matter of “particular concern” the 40 to 50 violent incidents each month. Every two days a member of staff is assaulted.

Prison officer David Todd has patrolled both Wormwood Scrubs and served in the British infantry in Derry during the Troubles. The 47-year-old has little doubt which was the more intimidating. “I feel more vulnerable walking the landings in British prisons than I did walking the streets of Northern Ireland,” he says. Even after 27 years of life as a prison officer, Todd describes the narrow walkways of Wormwood Scrubs as “very daunting”. In some jails, he adds, one officer is left to oversee 100 inmates. Organised gangs hold huge power. It is, says Todd, the precise opposite of a controlled environment. Or at least of one controlled by the state.

Ex-offender and former drug abuser Mark Johnson founded the charity User Voice to encourage prisoner rehabilitation. “Being incarcerated in this country at the moment,” he says, “is being in a system tantamount to torture. You’re in a place of chaos. You may have left behind a life of chaos but it’s like going from frying pan into the fire.”

Overpopulated, under-resourced, drug and pest-infested and terrifyingly violent, no public institution in England and Wales, according to expert consensus, has deteriorated more dramatically and more profoundly in recent years than our prisons. Todd has seen many things he wants to forget but cannot. Once he watched an inmate smoke spice, the synthetic drug that renders users catatonic, before flinging himself headfirst off a second-floor landing, arms by his side, making no attempt to break his fall. He found a prisoner in the kitchen in a Kent jail with his stomach sliced open. He remembers an inmate with mental health problems who would sit in his cell, silently eating his own faeces.

Government data published six days before Saleh was murdered confirmed that prisons in England and Wales have never been more dangerous. Assaults and serious assaults are, according to the Ministry of Justice, at record levels. In the 12 months to September 2017, 28,165 incidents were recorded – a 12% increase. Of those, 7,828 were assaults on staff. The rate of attacks continues to escalate. During the last quarter of 2017, another high was set with assaults rising to 86 a day, 24 of them against staff.

Independent analysis by the Observer of 220 official prison inspections, covering 118 adult jails in England and Wales, found that more than two in five were unsafe for prisoners. Self-harm inside prisons has also reached record levels – there were 42,837 incidents during the year to September, an increase of 12%. On an average day, there will be 117 such incidents. Eight inmates will be hospitalised. Someone takes their own life in prison every five days. Todd says prison officers quickly become accustomed to dealing with the “shocking” loss of blood after an inmate slices their wrist with a razor.

Since October, the parliamentary justice committee has been investigating what no one now denies is a crisis in our prisons. According to Bob Neill, the committee’s Conservative chairman: “We really need to have a serious conversation about what we use prison for. Society has to think about that.” Neill cited a vignette from a recent inspection of HMP Liverpool as illustrative of the challenges facing the penal estate. “The inspector went into one cell where the shower wasn’t working, the lavatory was broken and flooding. There was a mattress with a guy on it with mental health problems who had been there for six weeks. How much of our prisons now are just warehousing for people with mental health and other issues?”

One answer to that question comes from the Criminal Justice Alliance, which estimates that 21,000 mentally ill people, a quarter of the current jail population, are currently imprisoned, competing for just 3,600 high-security and medium-security beds reserved for mental-health patients in English prisons. The British Medical Association says the average life expectancy of a prisoner in England and Wales is 56, less than conflict-ridden, poverty-stricken South Sudan. The statistic, warns the BMA, is “a worrying reflection of the overall wellbeing of those in the secure estate”.

At the root of so much squalor, violence and distress is one inescapable truth: we are as a society incarcerating too many people. Official data revealed on Thursday that the number of prisoners in England and Wales rose to 84,255 – the highest imprisonment rate in western europe. A quarter of a century ago in 1993, the prison population stood at 44,552. Two-thirds of prisons are officially overcrowded.

Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice who wrote the report on the 1991 Strangeways prison riot, said that a complete government rethink was required, beginning with the need to address overcrowding. “I’m afraid we’ve got to have a complete reassessment of the situation. Although you can’t change the situation overnight, there has been a complete breakdown in recognising the fact that serious action is needed and recognising that the only way to do it is to have a long-term plan.” If any plan is to succeed, the prerequisite will surely be a reversal of the deep cuts that have stripped away thousands of experienced prison staff. Between 2012 and 2016, as the prison population rose, frontline staff fell by more than 7,000. A commitment to recruit 2,500 new prison officers has since been made, but Todd feels it is nowhere near enough.

Between 2016 and 2017, 57 prison officers left their jobs but only 21 were replaced. On C wing, where Saleh was killed, supervision problems were noted. Lack of staff meant too many prisoners were locked up in their cells, some for as long as 23 hours a day. Denied any purposeful activity, prisoners become desperate to kill time. Drug use has escalated, in particular the use of spice, the synthetic cabannoid described by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman as a “game-changer” capable of quickly transforming a passive inmate into a dangerous aggressor. Todd said: “It makes someone who is normal into an absolute animal. It’s hideous.” Clarke found drugs were “easily accessible” inside Wormwood Scrubs. The wing where Saleh died contained the prison’s unit for dealing with inmates needing help with substance misuse.

Given what amounts to the slow-motion meltdown of the prison estate, Rory Stewart, the new prisons minister, faces instant pressure to make an impact. Battle-hardened observers are already sceptical. Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform charity which campaigns for change, recently met Stewart. “As he pointed out, this is his fourth or fifth job in two years. He says he doesn’t know how long he is going to be there – and we’ve had six secretaries of state in seven years. “No wonder the system is in chaos. It’s a shambles.”

Many agree that Stewart’s initial challenge is to somehow cap, then lower, a prison population which is proportionately twice that of Germany’s. In the longer term, other issues require fixing: namely how to deal with the specific challenges of a fast-growing group of older prisoners aged over 60, largely driven by historic sex offending. Other demographic issues also need to be addressed, the chief of them being why there are so many black and ethnic minority people among the prison population. If the demographic makeup of inmates locked up reflected those of England and Wales, there would – as the Labour MP David Lammy recently noted – be 9,000 fewer black and ethnic minority people in prison, the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons.

Stewart must also urgently examine future prison privatisation. The Ministry of Justice expects the private sector to play a role in running prisons, but after a period of cross-party consensus, support for this is now waning. Among one of the less reported failures of Carillion, the government contractor which folded last month, was its role in maintaining Wormwood Scrubs. So hapless was its performance that the firm was deemed to represent “a threat to the security of the prison”.

On the basis of his visits to HMP Liverpool, Peter Clarke made a series of recommendations for improvements in our jails, emphasising among other things the urgent need to address the issue of overpopulation. On Friday a justice committee report condemned the government for failing to act on his advice. He is reportedly exasperated by the lack of a coherent response from Whitehall. Campaigner Mark Johnson said simply: “Report after report of evidence is being unearthed and yet nothing is changing. We need to start asking the question: what is prison for? We need to talk about what is happening.”

--oo00oo--

In another article, the Observer goes into some greater detail:-  

Exclusive: shock figures reveal state of UK’s brutal prisons

Observer analysis of inspection reports shows two in five jails are unsafe and inadequate conditions prevail in over two-thirds

The scale of the crisis engulfing Britain’s prisons can be revealed, after an Observer investigation found that two-thirds are providing inmates with inadequate conditions or unacceptable treatment. An analysis of hundreds of inspections covering 118 institutions found that a staggering 68% are now providing unsatisfactory standards in at least one respect, with two in five jails deemed to be unacceptably unsafe. Rory Stewart, the prisons minister, described the state of some jails as “deeply disturbing”. Writing in the Observer, he concedes that prisons are rife with psychoactive drugs, and see “increasing levels of violence committed by prisoners, and horrifying rates of self-harm”.

Speaking to the Observer, Lord Woolf, the former lord chief justice – who oversaw an inquiry after the notorious Strangeways riot in 1990, in which two people died – warned that there was a real risk of such an outbreak happening again. “[If] you ask me whether we have gone back to where we were pre-Strangeways, I think we are there in that sort of territory,” said Woolf. “It is not confined to one of our prison establishments. It is across the board. There has been a complete breakdown in recognising the fact that serious action is needed, and recognising that the only way to do it is to have a long-term plan, with somebody in charge of it throughout the term.”

All prisons are tested to see if they satisfy basic standards for safety, respect for prisoners, access to purposeful activities and help when they leave the institution. In each area, they are deemed as being good, reasonably good, insufficient or poor.

The Observer investigation found that in the most recent inspections of adult prisons in England and Wales, 80 out of the 118 jails examined were providing insufficient or poor standards in at least one area. Only 7% of prisons – just eight – received a “good” rating across all four categories. An alarming 44% were providing poor or insufficient safety, and almost half (47%) offered insufficient or poor access to meaningful activities – often leaving prisoners locked in cells for very long periods. Two in five prisons were providing inadequate assistance to prisoners as they left – a major problem in tackling reoffending.

As many prisons were deteriorating as improving, with conditions worsening in 41% since their last inspection. The worst-performing prisons, such as Bristol, Guys Marsh, Liverpool, Nottingham and Wormwood Scrubs, were also overcrowded. The government is attempting to reduce the prison population by exploiting an underused scheme to release thousands more prisoners early. Governors have been told to review cases of inmates refused release under a home detention scheme, allowing them to stay at home under curfew and with an electronic tag.

The latest official figures show that self-harm and assaults in prison are at a record high, with critics blaming cramped cells, a shortage of staff and prisoners spending too long locked up in poor conditions. The chaos has seen self-harm reach a record high of 42,837 incidents in the 12 months to September 2017, up 12% from the previous year. Assaults have reached a high of 28,165 incidents over the same period. Serious assaults are up by 10%. Of these, 7,828 assaults were on staff.

The judiciary, MPs and campaigners are calling for a wholesale rethink of what is expected of the prison system. Bob Neill, Tory chairman of the justice select committee, said: “This shows the system is in a state of crisis. We really need to have a serious conversation about what we use prison for. Society has to think about that. “The immediate issue is that we’re failing to provide decent conditions in too many of our establishments, [and] as many are getting worse as have improved.” He said too much money had been taken out of the prisons service under the coalition government. While a plan to recruit an extra 2,500 prison officers was announced at the end of 2016, the measure only partially made up for the 30% cut in numbers suffered since 2010.

Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, a charity that campaigns for change in prisons, said that the revolving door of political leadership for prisons was a big part of the problem. “We’ve had six secretaries of state in seven years,” she said. “No wonder the system is in chaos.” Woolf said that overcrowding urgently needed to be tackled. “I’m afraid we’ve got to have a complete reassessment of the situation,” he said. “Whenever there is a particularly nasty crime, what parliament wants to do is have a new offence and put sentences up – and so we go on.”

Stewart, who was appointed prisons minister last month, writes that he wants to tackle the flow of drugs into prisons and improve basic cleanliness. “Criminal gangs have become ever more skilled at pouring new psychoactive drugs into prisons,” he writes. “And partly as a result of these drugs, there are increasing levels of violence committed by prisoners, and horrifying rates of self-harm. Half of prisoners reoffend within a year of leaving custody – costing billions to the economy – and, more importantly, ruining the lives of tens of thousands of victims. “But I strongly believe we can improve our prisons and that we can make progress at pace.”

--oo00oo--

"The government is attempting to reduce the prison population by exploiting an underused scheme to release thousands more prisoners early. Governors have been told to review cases of inmates refused release under a home detention scheme, allowing them to stay at home under curfew and with an electronic tag."

Despite the MoJ wanting to try and play down the situation, many have been saying that several times the pressure on prison numbers has been so severe that there were only days away from declaring an emergency which would involve prison use of police cells. Maybe they need to liaise with their Home Office counter-parts because, due to police cuts, there are far fewer custody suites of any kind nowadays. 

I'm reliably informed that the situation had become so desperate that suitably-qualified HQ staff have been involved in touring prison establishments in order to facilitate executive releases. Of course we are all now aware that prisoner release of any kind has top priority, hence the rush to re-write the HDC process, referred to above, and announced last month. There are grave dangers in what is being proposed as the changes pretty much remove probation involvement around risk assessment:-  

"The Revisionistas strike again. i.e. in the same vein as their Glorious TR-iumph of kicking fiendish social workers into the gutter, they have now re-imagined HDC as being previously a grey, onerous task that has been magically freed from red-tape & drudgery by the courageous, swash-buckling MuskeTories. Huzzah! Gins all round!!"

"Also not good that risk is not a reason to refuse HDC! Where previously supervising officers were asked their views on whether they support (or not) release, this is no longer a question asked on HDC forms. The only issue is whether they have a suitable address. You can comment on risk but it's abundantly clear that release will happen if that address is deemed suitable. I'm currently on my 4th HDC report for the same high risk case. They really want every one with an address out asap."

"Words from HDC Clerk (similarly unimpressed with the change in decision-making process: “it’s a right now, not a privilege... I can’t think of many occasions where someone wouldn’t get it.”

Some have high hopes of Rory Stewart, the new Prison and Probation minister (although he's chosen to drop the 'Probation' bit), but sadly he talks a lot about drones but neglects to mention that most drugs get into prison via staff and pedals two lies in his Observer article:-

"In order to help this and many other things happen – such as increasing the quality of education in prison, boosting employment prospects and ensuring accommodation on release – we are recruiting an extra 2,500 prison officers. The recruitment is going very well, and we are close to hitting that target ahead of schedule."

It's news to us that there's any "ensuring accommodation on release" because we all know TTG is just an urban myth and in relation to prison officers, "The recruitment is going very well"  comes as a surprise to many, including Civil Service World who thinks he's been caught out telling porkies. This from their website:-

MoJ accused of ‘misleading public’ on prison officer recruitment

The Ministry of Justice has been accused of misleading the public over the state of staffing levels in UK prisons, following its announcement that a recruitment milestone will be reached nine months early. This week the department said its target of delivering a net headcount increase of 2,500 staff by the end of 2018 – set by then-justice secretary Liz Truss in 2016 – was on course to be met within the coming weeks, showing that the drive was working.

But union the Prison Officers’ Association said the MoJ was “massaging prison officer recruitment figures” in a way that gave a “massively false impression” of a service that was still in crisis after years of budget cuts. The latest figures, released by current justice secretary David Gauke, showed a net increase of 1,970 officers between October 2016 and December last year, with numbers up from 17,955 to 19,925 across bands three to five.

The MoJ said a further 1,582 new recruits had been offered roles and booked onto prison officer training courses, meaning the government was on target to recruit the 2,500 officers “nine months ahead of schedule”. POA general secretary Steve Gillan welcomed the increase in officer numbers but insisted that the current drive would not be enough to “undo the damage of years of cuts” that began under the coalition government.

He said that the government figures were “smoke and mirrors” that did not properly reflect the changing nature of the prison workforce since 2010 – particularly for entry-level grade prison officers in band three, whose numbers he said had fallen by 16% over the past eight years. According to the MoJ, there were 24,831 prison officers in bands three to five in March 2010, of whom 983 were custodial managers at band five, and 3,940 supervising officers at band four. The remaining 19,908 were prison officers.

Gillan said the MoJ’s latest dataset included 3,333 staff in bands four and five, meaning that POA estimated there were 16,592 band three prison officers. “In March 2010 there were 19,908 prison officers [at grade three] and as of 30 December 2017 there were 16,592 – a cut of 3,316,” Gillan explained. Further, in March 2010 there were 7,698 operational support grades and as of 30 December 2017 there were 4,422. That’s a cut of 43%." The union said it was calling on the government and the MoJ to “stop misleading the general public”.

Truss’s recruitment drive – announced at the Conservative party conference in 2016 – came against the backdrop of concerns over violence and suicide rates inside prisons, and has not been helped by staff turnover levels. The latest figures show the annual turnover rate among band three to five prison officers is 9.7%. Lauding his department's recruitment “milestone”,​ Gauke acknowledged that prison officers often worked in “very challenging, difficult and dangerous circumstances” and that issues in the secure estate needed to be dealt with “head on”.

“I am determined to tackle the issues in our prisons head on and I am committed to getting the basics right so we can focus on making them safe and decent places to support rehabilitation,” he said. “Staffing is the golden thread that links the solutions we need to put in place to drive improvement, so I am delighted our recruitment efforts are working.”

Civil Service World offered MoJ the opportunity to comment on the POA's observations. It declined.

Pick of the Week 43

I didn't rate the Guest blogger who wants the world to know how horrible it was to be on licence. He says his experiences of the probation service are 100% genuine and therefore all his following tendentious points are legitimate. The truth is the views expressed are based on personal experiences - how far the experiences are shared by others is anyone's guess. There is far too much extrapolation, generalisation and axe grinding. If you are going to write about personal experiences, stick to the facts and don't confuse them with opinions. We all have bad experiences at times and a little perspective helps us to understand what went wrong, why it went wrong and what could I have done, if anything, to have made things go better.

*****

Actually I think there can be a lot of justified generalisation on the other side of the desk and rightly so. Try and Imagine it from their point of view.

*****

‘Man down the pub’ saying last night most probation offices nowadays propped up by temps, trainees, PSO’s with few weeks training and handful of old PO workers waiting to retire. Temps there for the money (can’t blame them) hit targets to ensure time sheets are paid. Trainees mostly teenage girls with life experience of getting wasted at uni and work ethic of make up, nails and whining about parents. 

Many PSO’s fall into this group have less education, work experience and common sense than the first lot. Surprised at amount of offenders seen bringing in presents for young naive probation staff dressed for clubbing in work hours, and Court attire now become a little black dress. Young male trainees/PSO’s no better and just as arrogant, but few and far between. 

Old PO’s spend life gossipping in tea room and when put out to pasture return as temps. Staff sickness rates high, bullying managers ever present, and directors sending “what a great service we are” emails whenever taking a break from head up backside of Ministry of Justice. 

Probation now redundant and hides behind meaningless “risk management”, MAPPA, OASys, SARA, RM2000, SOTP, TSP, ARMS, NPS, CRC, HMIP. Not surprised offenders feel threatened by recall because probation no longer designed to build relationships, support, advise, assist, befriend. It’s a tick box exercise where offenders expected to nod and agree, and probation staff only there because they want to exercise power over people and pat themselves on the back.

*****
As a newly qualified male PO via the PQIP route (having previous work experience as a PSO and in prisons) I would disagree strongly, as well as being concerned at the questionable and borderline chauvinistic comments regarding make up and getting wasted! I accept that the influx of newer inexperienced PSOs is a worry, however would attribute this inexperience not to a lack of work ethic, but rather a lack of appropriate training that was afforded to previous ‘generations’. I also feel that the older generation have a valuable role to play (when tearing themselves away from the tea room) in ‘mentoring’ newer members of staff; if you have issues with their work ethic and knowledge, help shape it in a positive manner!

*****
'Man down t' pub' at risk of being kicked in the dry roasted peanuts, but probably not too far off the mark as things stand.

*****
Ho ho. Most of us with experience of team management will have their own stash of amusing memories of having to take someone on one side and deliver the "Appropriate Clothing Talk". Up there with the "Personal Hygiene Talk". Happy days.

*****
No manager has this talk nowadays from fear of being outed on a #metoo campaign. Nobody seems to care too many pquip trainees and new probation officers are young white women under the age of 25. It’s not the age, race and gender that’s the problem, it’s the lack of life experience. Those that haven’t lived life and still making mistakes shouldn't be telling others how to live theirs. With no experience to fall back on they hide behind probation-speak and what-the-computer-says. 

Most are professional and prime candidates to become automated-nodding-dog-managers in 2 years but it’s not a representative workforce when most offenders are males aged 21 - 40 and disproportionately ethnic minority in some areas. Add in the manipulative, predatory, abusive nature of some and you can see the problem. The prison service has this problem too. Ask a prison officer what life on the wing is like to bang up 60 men when your back-up is a pretty young male or female on a gap year.

*****
At the risk of being shouted at, and with one eye on the comments made, isn't the brutal truth that actually 'probation' doesn't exist any more? It's now a post custody and parole management service? Probation has long left the building but no body's got around to changing the sign on the shop front.

*****
Have to say from across the desk (or in the library) this seems about right! Although the two on our reception desk were young 'n dumb looking, but turned out they were the most knowledgeable and 'polite' of the lot. Of course one day they suddenly disappeared (too talented 'n informative) and were replaced by a couple of young ladies who didn't have a clue about having a clue, thus chaos. I did mistake our ETE man for being a homeless person. No wonder he looked at me funny when I said 'have you got yer food bank sorted mate?' Anyway, while I am between inevitable recalls due to your wonderful CRC incompetence, we gotta have a laugh eh? PS send stamps.

*****
Interesting read about OASys. Always thought that having an evidence based assessment tool was very important. However, always thought OASys was over the top, not particularly easy to navigate and use, unnecessarily time consuming and not easy to share with the person it was written about. The contributor is suggesting that it has become more time consuming. If this is true then this is a backward step, particularly when it means that the emergent risk management and sentence plan does not have time to be fully implemented. I note NPS public protection/risk management well regarded by Inspector, but questioned rehabilitative aspect. In addition, very frequent complaint by Probation workers about excessive time sat inputting information into computers. I wonder how much extra time might be had by simplifying OASys and having a better database IT system for it?

*****
Before TR, the third sector was part and parcel of the delivery of statutory probation services, which were managed locally. There was never any resistance to commissioning services and forming partnerships to address the rehabilitative needs. Even before there was a statutory obligation to use a proportion of budgets to commission, the probation service was always open to partnerships with other agencies because it was well-understood that effective probation work needed to work with housing, mental health, drug and alcohol, prisoner support and any other service that had something useful to offer. It was always a mix of statutory and voluntary services.

Elements in the third sector arguably did themselves harm when they became bid candy, seeing business opportunities rather than any need to wholeheartedly oppose TR. We need probation services with local governance who can then make decisions about commissioning. I don't think probation needs lessons from Clinks about innovative rehabilitation. It's easily forgotten that during its long history the probation service was a grassroots innovator – from the early days of victim support, joint working pre Mappa and innumerable initiatives throughout the country.

*****
There was also local commitment embedded in the historical funding arrangement where the local authority was a 'stakeholder' in the local probation service. This allowed for those pioneering innovations to be tailored to local need as opposed to being imposed by external organisations in order to meet contractual obligations. Its all gone arse-about-face, tail-wags-dog, beancounter-determines-intervention, etc.

*****
Could the 21C equivalent of historical local authority funding = Council Tax precept & under umbrella of PCC? It's a question, not a policy preamble.

*****
Thing that strikes me is that this is all about rehabilitation rather than risk management. Seemed to me all the answers were in the room and all the blocks (brick walls) are in the current structures in both sides of the split. Somebody better do some serious planning before these contracts end... or just fall over.

*****
If I were a dedicated Interserve employee I would be considering diversifying my business if I were sub contracted, less exposed to their perilous financial position. Or if directly employed, considering my options. Surely this is a problem with certain public services being provided this way? If the state does not underwrite the liabilities, then the service is not on a sound footing and subject to flight of all kinds with the risk of a service in tatters and adverse consequences for those dependant on those services.

*****
Interserve have a loaf and two fish and got until the 30th of March to make a miracle worth almost £200m, not to get them out of trouble but just to keep them limping on. The government can say what they like, but they wouldn't have made the embarrassing move to call in Deloitte if they didn't have grave concerns over the future of Interserve.

*****
If Interswerve collapses what would happen to the CRC's that they are contracted to manage? My hope and prayer would be that we would be handed back to the NPS. Can't wait till March.

*****
I couldn't agree more to put us out of our misery of having to endure Interserves "Interchange Model" which insists that we do not see service users on a weekly one to one basis (heaven forbid should we try and actually get to know people) but put them into groups in order to complete their RAR days.

*****
Is the very senior NPS managers' lack of relevant comments on twitter uncharacteristic? As civil servants who have signed something promising to keep stum, I would be under the impression that any work related comment in public on social media would not be allowed. In any case, allowed or not, has anyone lately met a senior NPS manager capable on or off record of making any comments relevant to the many current criminal justice crisis covered in the media?

*****
I think Worboys, the Parole Board, Venables, pictures of Liverpool prison with rats and cock roach and reports of rising crime rates all touch an emotive chord with the general public. But they're never long lived. However, the collapse of Carillion has done something else. It's focused the public on the whole privatisation debacle. 

The privatisation of public services, sold on the premise of efficiency and savings, was by many accepted as just part of the governments austerity programme, a necessary process to drive down the deficit. (When was the last time you heard a Tory mention the deficit?). But Carillion has shown the world that really austerity doesn't apply to the privateers, and the attention of the public have been drawn like never before to the privatisation of public services.

People are waking up to the fact that the privatisation of public services aren't making efficiency savings - they're costing more, and the services being provided are continually declining. A point well made in the FT yesterday pointed out that central government cuts to public services have now become so severe that its impossible to run them any cheaper. The reason for privatising public services must therefore be for other reasons and not about savings. The public can make their own minds up about what reasons they might be, but they can't be fooled any more about it being for efficiency savings and the best value for the public purse. 

People are becoming painfully aware what the consequences and impacts of privatisation are having on their lives, and their attention has been caught and focused. They've been sold a pup, and one that's not very well. And the more the government try to hide it, the more focus it will bring, and the more lies it will uncover.

*****
The expenses scandal was not so very long ago. When it suits them - MP’s demand that tax payers know how their money is spent. On other occasions it’s not so important depending on the issue it seems....

In terms of privatisation in sectors that do not lend themselves to being run in a capitalist market, a lot of tax payers money goes on competition lawyers during bidding processes and compensation payments to rich organisations like Virgin when they throw a tantrum about not managing to secure a contract! Not sure how the rest of the population feels, but I for one don’t want my taxes spent in this way! I would much rather it go out to charities to go and support people. Despite this recent scandal that may or may not have been hushed up.

*****
Interesting to read how pro-privatisation defend the status quo or more privatisation. They point to the past and belligerent and powerful unions frustrating progress, the dead hand of the state and inefficiency. The argument does not wash with Probation people. Union membership was part of a professional association and union services for its members on the whole. The Unions stated their case in respect of TR, protested minimally by work to rule and a couple of half day withdrawal of labour. Beyond that they worked to protect members terms and conditions. 

Probation culture itself had a history of innovation, adaptability and supportive of progressive changes. It must be clear by now that Probation in its former guise was non too shabby in its own efficient running and more than capable of managing further efficiencies given time and some investment. A whole system agenda of bringing core services together around common goals, possibly co located and/or development of joint working protocols would have been one way of delivering results. No different to calls now for social and healthcare to do the same. 

It is difficult not to view privatisation of Probation as myopic and ideologically driven with the present consequence of the fragmented parts all crying foul of their own misfortune. The call from many now to come together against a recognition that the parts of the former whole are now becoming shattered. Leadership from on high is urgently required.

*****
A study found that when the police wore body cameras, complaints fell by 93%. A camera is a better means of achieving peaceful outcomes than a clicking baton.

*****
Cameras do not work either and prisons already have cctv. The police were more mindful of their behaviour because they knew they were being cctv monitored.

*****
Yes because the police were more mindful of their behaviour because they knew they were being cctv monitored. Ask any prison officer, unless you’re Bruce Lee, a clicking baton doesn’t do much against in terms of instilling fear or protection. Let’s see the figures in a year from now as to how many officers have been beaten with their own baton. What works is staffing, resources, humane treatment and rehabilitation. Actually scratch that, why not the officers guns and then we can really join USA at the bottom of the barrel.

*****
I really worry about culture of video recording absolutely everything. I really don’t know where it will lead. People tend to jump on the bandwagon until it’s them that are being recorded. I seriously doubt many probation officers would be that keen on all their sessions and interviews being recorded.

*****
Probation staff would not take kindly to body-worn cameras, but then probation, unlike the prison and prison service, does not have a history of being assaulted or doing the assaulting. Cameras make a positive difference and they need to be body-worn because there are too many blind-spots with CCTV, as undercover journalists have documented when exposing abuse in different types of institutions. Whenever there is a suspicion by relatives that loved-ones are being mistreated by a care worker, the first step is always covert cameras. Cameras have been trialed in many prisons and they improve behaviour.

*****
The MoJ have today responded to the prison inspectors new urgent notification powers raising dire concerns over HMP Nottingham. One of the actions taken is to remove 50 18 to 21 year olds from the prison and locate them elsewhere. That actually equates to the loss of 100 places for operational capacity. 50 places not being used at Nottingham and 50 places having to be found to accommodate those being moved. With an overflowing prison population already, that's a sore loss for the prison service, and it won't take many more decisions like it before the prison estate is housing prisoners in police cells once again.

*****
The long-term solution is to abolish mandatory supervision for short-term prisoners. We know supervision is cursory, that there is little on offer in addition to the notorious £46, so it's no wonder there is disengagement. But while the state offers little by way of rehabilitation, it's quick to get probation to do the dirty work and punish those who do not engage with a hollow service. The fact that there is a postcode lottery element evident in disparate recall figures, makes the whole process arbitrary and even more worrying.

*****
I couldn't agree more. If supervision for some boils down to a phone call every 6 weeks, you have to question the merits of being on supervision at all, and consider how much that phone call every 6 weeks is really costing the taxpayer? Maybe if those that don't really need supervision and those who will receive no benefit from being on supervision were weeded out, then the resources that would be saved could be redeployed reducing redundancies and freeing up staff to spend more time and resource on those that actually need it.

*****
Scotland have, I think, abolished prison sentences of under 3 months. Not rocket science, could be done in England and Wales, but does require a smidgen of political courage.

*****
Yes, Darren McGarvey (Scots) talked about this at the NAPO event at the Welsh Assembly last week. Probation integral to Social Services, Social Work training and values, and Government legislating away from short term custody in favour of community rehabilitation. I was thinking of moving to Scotland, then I thought I might just sit tight in Wales, where this sort of thinking seems to be catching on.

*****
Pre-TR, my Probation Trust had a fantastic relationship with a really excellent local women's organisation. Its reach wasn't as wide as the Trust's area. The Trust commissioned the organisation to do the work with ALL women offenders in the patch. It was great: the work was gender-specific, and at arms-length of the state. Then the whole competitive tendering for huge geographical patches came in, then TR, and all that progress, and healing, and rehabilitation, was dust.

*****
This is clear evidence that women are getting recalled for ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with increased risk or committing further offences. When I raised the issue that women were being recalled for spurious reasons, I was loudly shouted down by people stating that such things would never happen. Eat your words people cos the evidence is now in that this is exactly what is happening.

*****
Given the massive gender imbalance in probation, it's likely that in most cases a woman is being recalled by a woman. There is evidence suggesting women are more risk averse than men, so if the probation workforce was gender balanced, recalls may fall.

*****
"The government should urgently look at differences in current local practice and encourage greater emphasis upon community interventions to stem the growing numbers of people ending up back behind bars."

Which is yet another irrefutable argument for consistent practice, the key to the argument for a unified single service & NOT 21 crc's sending HMGovt monthly invoices with spreadsheets as proof that enough targets have been met; NOT sending £m's of taxpayer money into the pockets of, say, Fairburn, Green, Spurr etc.

*****
For CRC staff now remaining in their teams this must be an endurance and faith test, one I myself have recently failed. Endurance in the face of excessive workload, the knowledge that no matter how hard you work, you still can't cover it to a standard that satisfies anyone. The knowledge that all your efforts still don't do any of the work you would love to do, ie support and rehabilitation.

You're just a small dysfunctional misfiring cog in a massive machine of nightmare nonsense. Your purpose becomes one of survival, how to avoid being taken for capability or disciplinary by manager with a ladder to climb (or with his/her own survival agenda), how to preserve self respect and work life balance, how to explain to service users that the whole thing has gone to pot and how they themselves can best survive the joke that is now the criminal justice system. How to keep believing that if you hang in there for long enough change will come. 

What little signs to watch out for here in the deep midwinter that spring is on its way. Are the senior managers beginning to take cover? Are they moving from operational roles into administrative ones? Are edicts and decrees being issued with no authority, no insistence, no following through? Are the new senior managers looking younger and more inexperienced? Is there more awareness in the press, are private providers of public services beginning to go to the wall? Yes, these are all signs. But how long still? Will I last?

*****
When I joined the service in 1990, one of the things that attracted me to the idea of training to be a PO was the variety. I worked out that the various disciplines offered sufficient variety to allow me to experience 2 years in each role without repeating myself for 16 years. Courts, Hostel, Prison, Programmes, Family Court Welfare, Community Service (then headed by a PO), Supervision and Throughcare. I then thought I would have had the option of being an SPO for the same teams. 32 years of variety!

Fantastic. Since the creation of NOMS, however, the jobs have got smaller and smaller and most of these disciplines no longer exist. One programmes SPO in each team? Now there is only one in each region! One SPO per hostel? Now there is one per four hostels. One Court SPO per Court? Now it is one per county. The job, as a career choice, has lost a lot of it's variety and, consequently, it's job satisfaction.

*****
I largely accepted the message of tough choices given the dire straits of public finances in the wake of the financial crisis. I expected fewer public sector workers, building/office rationalisation and considered filtering to use resources to best effect. I expected a prolonged pay freeze. I expected to work harder. I expected areas merging and finding savings through efficiencies of scale and synergy. Tough choices are choices nonetheless and prior to 2015 those in respect of Probation were made hastily and recklessly.

Significant problems were predicted over and over from the majority of expert opinion but dismissed as having vested interest, being old school and akin to 'the blob'. Now we have a wake of a different kind and it comes with a visceral sadness and anger at the predictable dysfunction that has emerged. It seems to me that the government is wedded to the idea of persevering with the fragmentation and incoherence of the privatised probation services.

They appear to still believe that the problems are transitional, a tweak here and there, a few extra millions allotted forensically, will provide a foundation for the market in Probation services to flourish. It won't. The problems are systemic, any amount of lubrication, work arounds, extensions, unplugging and unblocking the connections, outlets and inlets will I fear always return more problems. On that cheery note, here endeth the sermon. Love and peace to all :)

*****
The Revisionistas strike again. i.e. in the same vein as their Glorious TR-iumph of kicking fiendish social workers into the gutter, they have now re-imagined HDC as being previously a grey, onerous task that has been magically freed from red-tape & drudgery by the courageous, swash-buckling MuskeTories. Huzzah! Gins all round!!

*****
I am being told that a number of staff were ordered to attend an open day at a prison in Lancashire this week but after being bullied, coerced and dragooned, not a single one expressed an interest in working there. Meanwhile, in another part of the area, rumour has it that some staff are being directed out of prisons so that others, who have no interest in doing so, can be pushed or forced to take their places. Meanwhile, staff are leaving in droves and coming back on agency rates of pay whilst dictating where and when they will work. What say our great leaders?...,.Nowt!

*****
“Facebook remains a relatively safe place for probation staff trying to survive in the TR omnishambles to share thoughts, concerns and seek advice.”

Wrong. Many staff are being pulled up for social media comments, particularly NPS as they’re meant to be “impartial”. Managers use Facebook and twitter, some are in the Facebook groups too. I never comment in these groups because of this.

*****
“The Ministry of Justice has issued revised guidance for its home detention curfew (HDC) scheme, which sees eligible prisoners released under strict monitoring conditions, including a tag and a requirement to be home between 7pm and 7am.”

Oh dear. Not another early release scheme!!! Yes it’s good people are being released and can get on with their lives. It’s not so good there will be no additional probation officers and resources to support/supervise them, no housing support, no employment support, nothing.

*****
Also not good that risk is not a reason to refuse HDC! Where previously supervising officers were asked their views on whether they support (or not) release this is no longer a question asked on HDC forms. The only issue is whether they have a suitable address. You can comment on risk but it's abundantly clear that release will happen if that address is deemed suitable. I'm currently on my 4th HDC report for the same high risk case. They really want every one with an address out asap.

*****
I heard that the Napo officials want more pay too, how can that happen? Surely more pay to fund it has to come from a pay increase to subscription?

*****
You will never get a pay rise this century. Probation is now dominated by robots with degrees in criminology ... in London the YOT I work in, YOS Officers earn more than SPOs.  Jump ship asap!