Responses to Demise of TR 6

Here we have some thoughts on probation training post TR from the Probation Institute in their latest magazine:-

Probation Training and Qualifications: An overview

This issue of Probation Quarterly goes out during the important consultation on the future of Probation itself. It is particularly timely to focus part of this PQ on probation training; the future of training and ongoing professional development feature in the consultation and are of great significance, but there is a risk that these issues will attract less attention than the questions about the future structures and systems. 

The history of probation training over the last 50 years is in many ways the history of probation and reflects the importance of professional training. The decision to retain probation practice within social work training and in higher education in the early 1970s post Seebohm helped to affirm probation as a profession. The retention, after an extensive campaign, of probation training in higher education in the late 1990s, albeit separated from social work as a distinct qualification, continued the professional status.

Whichever way the consultation takes us in 2018 - if indeed this is genuine consultation - there may well be further challenges to the higher education status. Question 10 is a very open question inviting a range of ideological answers: “Which skills, training or competencies do you think are essential for Responsible Officers authorised to deliver probation services, and how do you think these differ depending on the types of offenders staff are working with?” 

The consultation paper barely uses the term “probation officer” or “probation services officer”. It uses the terms “Responsible Officer” and “Offender Manager” somewhat interchangeably. The naming and defining of job roles needs to be addressed not fudged in this consultation. These are critical issues but there are also bigger gains to pursue in the arena of training and professional development.

The decision not to regulate training and qualifications in TR was one of the many serious ideological errors and one which threatened to destroy the consistency of professional training for probation staff - Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers. 

A Level 6 (Degree Level) Apprenticeship is currently being developed, with PQiP at its heart. This Apprenticeship is being developed by an Employer Development Group led by NPS and CRCs and is intended for all those currently qualified through PQiP as Probation Officers. 

This is an important development not least in having successfully achieved the support of the majority of the CRCs after two years of uncertainty in which a number of the CRCs gave serious consideration to developing their own qualifications for their own “equivalent” roles. Had the Apprenticeship not offered hard cash to the CRCs it is unlikely that they would have cooperated.

The new breed of Apprenticeships led by the new Apprenticeship Institute is far from settled down however, and care will be needed to support and ensure the high quality of this Degree Level Apprenticeship and it’s implementation. In parallel is the development of the Level 3 Apprenticeship replacing the VQ3 for those roles designated Probation Services Officers and equivalent roles in both NPS and the CRCs. It is well documented that this group of practitioners in both NPS and in CRCs carry responsibilities which would once have fallen to a fully qualified Probation Officer and that consistency of training and qualifications is critical for this group also. There is a pressing need to resolve the naming of these job roles.

An important message for the consultation is that training and qualifications must be regulated for clear roles with agreed role definitions. By regulation we mean legislation. The consultation also seeks views on the proposed Professional Register - how this should operate and for whom. In this proposal there is the opportunity to resolve the job titles and regulate the training and qualifications for agreed roles. It should be stated very clearly in response to the consultation that the Professional Register must include any contracted private providers of Probation Services, should these continue.

Not everyone in MOJ is committed to training Probation Officers in higher education. The closer working relationship with the Prison Service and the introduction of Offender Managers in prisons has prompted questions about the disparity between prison and probation training. Respondents to the consultation should take the opportunity to reinforce the importance of a degree level qualification and why it is so important. Bear in mind that policing has now accepted that a degree level qualification is a necessary outcome of initial training for police constables.

There are gaps in training for probation officers and these include brokering and supporting appropriate commissioned services, irrespective of the role of the private sector. 

What of bigger prizes? Given the increasing responsibilities of the role this may be an opportunity to suggest that the qualification for a “Probation Services Officer” and their equivalents should be raised to Vocational Level 4. Police Community Support Officers have introduced a Level 4 Apprenticeship.

For the voluntary sector? The emerging Level 3 Apprenticeship was initially designed to include the voluntary sector. St Giles Trust, PACT and RISE each contributed and supported the draft standard. This support has been lost through delay but in our view this could be rebuilt. The purpose would be to enable voluntary organisations to be a genuine part of the development and management of an appropriate, aligned Apprenticeship, and to draw down funding for training and assessment standards which their practitioner staff could reliably achieve. This step would extend professional training and qualifications to the voluntary sector for the first time, inviting them to join the Professional Register.

A further prize would be to extend the Professional Register to Offender Managers (at least) in the Prison Service and to Youth Offending Practitioners. The benefit of this reach would be to establish one Professional Body across Probation, Prisons, Youth Justice and the voluntary sector working in justice. This would be an independent statutory body having significant scope to advance consistency and professional development across services, a better prospect of resourcing and a breadth of authority currently lacking in any forum.

Helen Schofield 

Acting CEO, Probation Institute

Guest Blog 66

Life on Licence

Some months ago I finished the licence portion of my sentence after a three year prison term. The licence started in 2014 so it spanned the changes between the old system and the new supposedly shinier, all singing, all dancing privatised probation service brought in by Chris Grayling in his term as SSJ. This post is about my experiences of probation over that time.

Purple Futures aka Interserve took over from the former probation trust in my area in February 2015. This was lauded as “a really good thing”, or so I was told by my OM, because allegedly Interserve had been incredibly sensible and had hired former probation staff to run the new CRC. So, in contrast to what was happening in other areas under other providers who hadn’t been as foresighted, this was going to be THE model on how to run a privatised probation service. Imagine a drum roll at this point, followed by a marching band playing hail the conquering heroes.

I was highly sceptical of these claims given Interserve’s chequered history of running anything, anywhere, as a quick Google search makes abundantly clear. But the OM had the fervour of the recently converted religious acolyte and could only spout endlessly about how absolutely marvellously things were going to work out under the new corporate overlords. Maybe I’m just cynical, but detail on exactly how they were going to do this wonderful thing seemed to be conspicuously absent. Apparently one was just supposed to believe in fairies and unicorns etc.

Privatisation of public services in the UK, despite being lauded as the panacea to all ills for politicians from Thatcher onwards, has pretty much been a uniform failure as the privatisation of rail services to utility companies to private prisons etc. has made abundantly clear. So it was highly unlikely the privatisation of probation was going to be a rousing success. And let’s face it; Chris Grayling’s track record ain’t exactly stellar. But to be fair, all of those I knew in prison released around the same time I was decided to give probation the benefit of the doubt and approach things with an open mind and to judge what happened next on our personal experiences.

I’d pretty much served a year of the licence under the old system before it became the new all singing all dancing one. Additionally I had also had contact with the pre TR system whilst still in custody. In other words, I had a pretty good basis of comparison upon which to judge both the old and new systems.

To be blunt: probation pre TR, in my opinion, was pretty dysfunctional and this mainly seemed to be due to both quality of staff and the attitude of staff and management towards clients. By the time of release I was on OM number 4. Numbers 1 and 2 did little more than send out the obligatory yearly letter and failed to answer any letters I sent to them (apparently far too busy to answer correspondence from prisoners even before staffing numbers were decimated by TR according to a response to a complaint I filed about their rudeness in not answering my letters). This astounded me as professional courtesy should at the very least dictate you send a response to all correspondence received. But apparently the old probation system didn’t believe in such things.

Number three seemed to delight in needlessly causing complications for some unknown reason and her decisions ended up being struck down in a judicial review for having breached my legal rights as well as breaking a number of legal obligations under several Probation Instructions. She vanished shortly thereafter on maternity leave and as far as I’m aware never resurfaced. So not exactly the most productive working relationship.

Number four showed up some time after this and this is the one I was stuck with until the end of the licence. I’ve never quite been able to come up with an appropriate label for Number 4 who veered between jobsworth, ragingly incompetent, completely disinterested and spiteful. But I’ve always been struck throughout every single interaction I had with her, how completely unsuited to the job she was. Every interaction we had was about her and not me and on the odd occasion when things were about me it was always about her, if you get what I mean. She had absolutely no interest in any developments happening in the world or the criminal justice system that may have an impact on her job or me; she refused to look at any documents such as court papers I had that would have corrected the many many instances of incorrect information in my probation records and her decision making seemed to be lacking in both rigour and care. She got really pissed off if I complained about her to management no matter how justified the complaint might have been (interestingly every one was found in my favour). My philosophy was, if you’re going to hold me to account for my failings then it is not unreasonable for me to do the same to you, especially when those failings can impact hugely on me. The whole do unto others thing. But apparently people get really upset when you treat them as they treat you.

There were a number of specific areas that came up as particularly unsatisfactory during the term of the licence. These were:

Accommodation

Despite being offered suitable (and free) accommodation by a friend which would have allowed me a secure roof over my head whilst I got my life back on track after release and the other probation trust agreeing in writing to accept me if the OM put in a request, my OM refused point blank to even entertain the idea. So I got released back to an area I had no connection to but was merely where I got arrested with nowhere to live and no support network. She did, grudgingly refer me to the local homeless hostel where I spent a truly awful four months living in a worse environment than prison (more drug addicts openly using, more crime etc) with the only advantages being better food and the fact you could come and go as you pleased. I also ended up with less money than I’d had in prison as the hostel took over half of my weekly benefit amount.

It’s not just me who has had these issues regarding accommodation on release. I regularly talk to a homeless guy in our town centre who spent time in jail and ended up on the streets on release despite being offered accommodation with his family in another area of the country (his OM also refused to let him move away from the area he was arrested in). His view of probation is about as positive as mine. He has had even less help or support from his OM than I have, which is saying something. Despite there being a number of emergency beds in the homeless shelters in town available every night the OM didn’t even bestir herself to refer him to any of them or even to the local homeless team when he got out and without a referral you can’t get in to them and you can’t self refer. She has done absolutely nothing for him since his release seemingly quite happy that he is living on the street, regularly beaten up by drunks on the weekend, begging for money for food and with his mental and physical health visibly deteriorating week by week

Grants

Many grants available to people in desperate need of money, such as ex prisoners, can often only be accessed through a third party such as probation or a social worker. Some of the easiest to get funding for, for ex prisoners, is only through probation submitting an application on behalf of the ex prisoner.

Probation, prior to TR, was reluctant to do even the simplest of grants for even the most basic necessities. Post TR, there was an absolute refusal to even consider this despite it being clearly explained, with supporting documents, how important it was for probation to help because it may often have been the only source of funds available to meet basic needs.

Charities and grant funding trusts would be more than likely unaware that probation were now refusing to help needy applicants apply for funds so would have been very unlikely to change the application terms so another referrer could be sought and utilised such as the CAB (not every ex prisoner has or is eligible for a social worker for example). This refusal by probation was deliberately and knowingly cutting vulnerable people off from accessing funds that could help them get their lives back on track. I’d also add that these grant applications were simple and straightforward so would have taken little time to complete.

Jobs

The major thing that really struck me about how dysfunctional probation was, was in relation to working or volunteering after release from prison. Study after study has shown that getting a job after prison is one of the main things that helps reduce the possibility of reoffending. So you’d think that probation would be only too supportive of someone wanting to get a job and having the skills and experience to do so and who was a very low risk offender unlikely to reoffend. But the reality is weirdly quite different.

I wanted to get a decent job that would allow me to use my skills and experience and give me a liveable income or at least do some volunteering until I could secure a reasonable job after a being unemployed for three years languishing at Her Majesty’s pleasure. There was nothing in my licence that would have prevented me from working or even volunteering but oddly, obstacle after obstacle was put in my way. At one point I was threatened with recall for even enquiring about volunteering placements.

In fact the only thing she would let me apply for was Timpsons’ training programme for ex cons (and this only after I filed a complaint about her refusal to let me work or volunteer). But as I have never had the slightest desire to do shoe repairs, would be unlikely to be considered for any such role being vastly over qualified (i.e. Timpsons would consider I wouldn’t stay so it would be a waste of time and money training me) and had a medical condition that affected my manual dexterity so wouldn’t have been able to actually do the job, this was a non starter.

I wasn’t allowed to go down the self employed route either. Apparently this was a sure fire way for me to start prolifically reoffending despite a total lack of evidence to support this assertion (my offence had nothing to do with my previous employment for example).

I wasn’t even allowed to do any voluntary work which would have polished up my skill set and given me a good reference for when I was allowed to work again. From what I was able to dig out of an alternate and fifth OM who subbed for number 4 when she was away on holiday or off sick, it boiled down to the fact that the OM simply couldn’t be bothered to do the necessary paperwork for volunteer or paid employment and routinely refused permission for anyone she was supervising to do either.

Mind you, talking to other people who I was inside with who were on licence at the same time as me or who still are, this is very common amongst OM’s as only one of us has actually been permitted to work during their licence period. Everyone else was, let’s say, “strongly discouraged” from doing so. Give that we’re all in different areas under different CRC’s or different bits of the NPS it’s clearly an issue across the board and not just limited to one OM in one CRC. It seems that consigning those released from prison to a life on benefits whilst on licence is much preferred by a substantial number of probation practitioners in all areas simply because it’s less work for the OM. The fact that it’s potentially very detrimental to the ex prisoner and counter to the stated goals of rehabilitation and probation seems completely irrelevant.

So basically I was stuck on benefits for the entire licence which was just so much fun though at least the DWP couldn’t sanction me because it was probation preventing me from working and not anything I was or was not doing. Now I’m off licence, I’ve been out of the work place for so long, I’m verging on unemployable. Trying to get more up to date qualifications has proven to be a non starter as you simply can’t get funding if you already have a degree qualification and having been on benefits for over three years and losing absolutely everything I owned whilst inside, I cannot self fund. I’ve started doing some volunteer work in a local charity shop just to get myself out of the house as much as possible and back into the real world. All of this could have been so easily avoided and makes me wonder why probation is allowed to get away with doing things like this.

Reporting/Supervision

One thing that did noticeably change was that reporting went from face to face meetings to phone calls immediately after February 2015. I’d gone from weekly meetings to fortnightly meetings after three months to monthly meetings after 6 months. But the moment things got handed over to the privateers the monthly face to face went to monthly phone calls with face to face meetings scheduled only once in a blue moon. This is true for all of those on licence I know no matter what our risk level. I’m not sure how you can properly supervise anyone over the phone especially in this day and age of mobile phones because the supervisee could literally be anywhere doing anything but as long as they answer the phone at the scheduled time that’s apparently fine.

Every single reporting session was a complete waste of time. I learned very quickly, as did just about everyone else I knew on licence, that it was simply not a good idea to talk about anything personal, good or bad with your OM because it only led to trouble. You got in and out as quickly as possible, said as little as possible and never discussed anything personal. One of the few people I know who didn’t stick to this rule got recalled for bursting into tears in front of their OM after getting some bad news about a death in the family and was promptly recalled as apparently crying means you’re emotionally unstable and immediately going to run out and commit a crime (she wasn’t, she just had a perfectly normal reaction to some bad news).

Supervision suggests an active involvement with the offender and working with them to help them understand what caused them to commit the crime in the first place and what would stop them reoffending in the future and providing the help necessary to facilitate that. What you get in practice these days is a tick box exercise of a monthly phone call lasting no more than five minutes and zero help. In most cases, not even a leaflet.

The legal stuff

One thing that has always struck me about both prison and probation is the sheer disregard for the law most prison and probation staff have. Trampling over inmates’ or those on licence’s legal rights happens on a regular basis and with seeming endorsement by management who consistently fail to either provide proper training to prevent it or police those breaking the law in their organisations. This always strikes me as completely hypocritical. Surely both prison and probation staff have a moral and ethical, if not legal, obligation to set a good example for those they supervise to help those convicted of crime lead a law abiding life? It really doesn’t inspire anyone trying to go straight to constantly see people regularly and with seeming impunity break the law. The law, it would seem, to a casual observer of such things, only applies to those society have deemed to be on the receiving end of it.

I was lucky enough to have sufficient education, intelligence and strength of character (which no doubt some would label “bloody mindedness”) to be able to inform myself of my legal rights and to tackle a dysfunctional system that ran roughshod over those rights on a regular basis. I was also not what one would deem vulnerable having no mental health issues, no drug or alcohol issues and had not been exploited by anyone and forced to commit crime. If I had been vulnerable, as so many are who end up in prison, I would have received no help or support from a system that is supposed to provide such things and would probably have ended up back inside as no doubt many who I knew inside did simply because they failed to get the help and support they needed to turn their lives around. Probation, in my experience, never really seemed to care about those it supervised and now simply doesn’t give a toss about anything other than ticking all the boxes to collect all the money.

Another thing that changed noticeably between pre and post TR was the whole data protection thing which, as anyone who has read Inside Time on a regular basis will know, is a major issue for prisoners due to their records being riddled with inaccuracies which cause huge problems with progression and release. Pre TR you got a copy of your records for free under a data subject access request and it was pretty straightforward to get inaccuracies amended. After TR you had to cough up a tenner despite the fact they are basically the same records written by the same people. Which if you’re on benefits is a lot of money and would put most people off asking for them no matter how badly they were needed. Another clear sign that the CRC’s are not providing a service for the benefit of anyone.

My OASys reports were consistently done late and, for the most part inaccurately completed (wrong offence, wrong date of birth, incorrect name spellings to name just a few issues). It turned out these issues weren’t just limited to the OASys but were also throughout every record held by the Trust/CRC. This is despite the fact that the Data Protection Act 1998 is very clear that anyone putting any personal data about you into their organisation’s records has a legal obligation to ensure that what they are entering is factually accurate. With any data received from third parties there is also a legal obligation to verify it for accuracy before it is entered into your records. You also have to record the source of the third party data. Professional opinions are allowed to be included in your data BUT they must be clearly shown to be just that and cannot be presented as fact.

Unfortunately my OM was blithely unaware of her legal obligations re the DPA until I tackled her about why she was stating so many factually inaccurate things in my records and passing off her professional opinion of me as fact. Not only was she unaware of her legal obligations, it also turned out she simply didn’t care. She even stated on a significant number of occasions that it “was not her job” when the law states it is. This is a massive failing in training staff by management especially where companies and organisations can end up with some pretty hefty fines for data protection failings. It is not enough to appoint a Data Controller in head office and assume your legal obligations are done and dusted; you have to thoroughly train staff in their legal obligations as well in this area. I can only assume it’s because management assumes all offenders are stupid and/or uneducated with no interest in or understanding of their legal rights so they can get away with it.

My OM seemed to also be blithely unaware of my licence conditions despite the fact she’d actually written them. She’d stuck me with some special licence conditions which were ludicrous and completely unnecessary as the standard conditions would have easily covered things and I was about the lowest risk offender going (according to all analyses). But even though she had actually drafted these conditions, she seemed to be completely unaware of what they actually said and on several occasions she alleged I’d breached the terms of my licence when I hadn’t simply because she had misinterpreted what she herself had actually written. It took a formal complaint to the Chief Executive to resolve the matter which seemed a ridiculous way to have to resolve things.

So what have I learned from my time on licence? I cannot in all conscience say that I learned anything from being in prison or on licence except that the entire system is completely dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever for most people of being supervised by probation as it currently stands. In fact, for most people, probation seems to be a horrendous waste of time and money that could be better invested in things that might actually work to help reduce reoffending.

It’s also clear that an awful lot of people employed in the service are, like a lot of prison officers, simply not suited to the job. I have no idea if my OM is typical or not of the average probation officer in the current system – she may well be to some degree from what I have gathered from talking to others on licence. But it seems from the experience of all these people that the average OM leaves a lot to be desired. This cannot all be down to a flawed system that has decimated any help there was back in the good old days but must have something to do with those working in probation at all levels. You do hear the odd encouraging story of a decent OM but sadly they seem to be in the minority. The best things I’ve heard from people about their OM was that they kept out of the way whilst people got on with their lives and they didn’t impose stupid shit on their supervisees. In other words, they were better than most simply by being pretty much absent from the equation.

I struggle to see how things can be fixed without throwing the entire current system out and installing a completely new one based on a system that actually does what it says on the tin like the Nordic or Dutch systems. Though there is unfortunately zero appetite from government for such things as has become increasingly clear over the past decade or so. It might help if the SSJ was someone who had courage, convictions and actually had a clue but no Tory seems to possess such qualities.

There also needs to be root and branch wholesale look at the entire criminal justice system in the UK. If other countries can get it right, or at least do a lot better than the UK is, why are those in charge in this country so reluctant to introduce practice that actually works? It needs to start in the police station after someone has been arrested and proceed through the entire court system, into prison or probation.

I suspect that practitioners who still have pride in their profession will strongly disagree with what I have said but this is my experience of life on licence and not so very different to experiences of others on licence during the same time period.

Anon

Pick of the Week 17

CRC probation officers are being told they will hold about 50 medium risk cases. Many unpredictable DV cases. Will also have to cover Marac and in addition assist PSO's or oversee some of their work and advise if need to pass to a PO. Basically doing some of the work of middle managers who will soon be reduced by 50%! 

In addition struggling with admin staff moving to hubs and some offices have no reception or admin to field calls so we are all doing that too, PO or PSO, we just muck in. Failing IT systems and waiting days to get IT problems sorted. In addition some CRC staff are having to interview in public buildings or share a single interview room with multiple colleagues. 

The general public will not be aware of this at the moment but may object if they knew or not take little jimmy to the creche there! I would like to see a staff survey perhaps tied in with a service user survey to build a picture of exactly what is going on and then publish the findings. A comparison with criminal justice social work in Scotland would also be helpful to see if things are any better there. They have been unaffected as separate system and social work qualification is still required here! The loss of this professional and relevant qualification seemed to herald a decline and undermining of our role.

******
As has been observed on & by this blog for some time now, the 'reality of probation' is that probation as a noble profession has been assigned to history, it has been fatally wounded & profits for privateers are paramount. Individuals are stoically fighting to maintain a level of service provision that is meaningful, but at huge personal cost.

Grayling, his acolytes & those who eagerly collaborated in this vile social experiment should be prosecuted for gross negligence in public office. They have damaged or destroyed careers, charitable organisations & peoples' lives. They should be required to make recompense from their own deep pockets - pockets filled with public money &/or gratuities from private companies. They should be exposed as the charlatans & fraudsters they truly are. They should be ashamed, but sadly they are without capacity for shame, they are without conscience.

******
A well written and recognisable piece by the Probation Officer in the Guardian. It communicated on a number of levels including an emotional appeal. It would be interesting to see such articles appear in a wider cross section of the media, in particular the more right wing press, where I imagine that readership might be less aware of the plight of many public service workers and those members of the public (all of us) who lose out as a result. The account is one that might have been written by any number of public sector workers. Maybe more articles could be submitted with an ambition to find a wider audience?

******
It was a good article, and I identified with much of it. And we do need more of similar in different places. Maybe we need more articles by or on behalf of those receiving the 'services' and how they came to need them in the first place. And how we criminalise people at the drop of a hat, sometimes from an early age. A sustained campaign would be good. We can't rely on the Howard league to do it all for us. And I don't think the public would respond primarily to the plight of probation staff. I think we would come across as feeling more sorry for ourselves than for victims of crime and service users put together. Sadly I don't think that those in charge at present will want the awareness they will need in order to be able to find it in their hearts to change things. They are hard - hearted.

******
There never was a golden age. If you take out TR from this article, you have a description of probation in the years leading up to the split, not least the 70% of time spent in IT processing on substandard systems. Compared to the costs of imprisonment, sufficient funds have never been invested in rehabilitation – or the causes of crime: poor education, poverty, drugs, etc... Structurally unequal societies manufacture crime and discrimination. Frontline probation work, especially since the cognitive-behavioural revolution, has always been about dealing with generations of failing individuals who are part of the fallout of the wider social failings. There will always be crime, but, as the evidence shows, it prospers more where there is economic inequality and lots of law and order rhetoric.

******
I would like to know how frontline staff are going to cope when we are reduced by 40%? What tasks can we let go of in order that we can keep up with the incessant demands upon our time? We are running at full speed. Working Links seem to think that the answer is to get rid of the 'troublemakers' and assume that newly qualified staff will be putty in their hands. I can tell you now that the newly qualified staff I have spoken to are no push overs and they are as appalled by the destruction of the service as anyone else.

******
For me the PI was born in unfortunate circumstances but that aside the concept is one I support. Professional standards and values, the idea of a body that seeks to protect, enhance and promote the gem and integrity that is the Probation ideal needs supporting in my view. To fail to put fear, grievances. appreciable as they be, aside will I believe be to the detriment of Probation as a recognised profession.

******
I'm afraid they aren't going to get much support from us broken band of POs. Unfortunately we've nothing left to lose and we realise no one cares that we've been destroyed. It seems to me we just keep trying our best to do what we can of our job until we find a way out.

******
I believe that had the PI developed prior to TR it would have flourished. I don't see how it can maintain professional standards when it failed to speak out against privatisation of probation services.

******
Privatisation and profit was and remains a huge contention for me too, particularly in our work. The modus operandi as Chris Grayling stated at the time was, 'I don't want to pay for a service I want to pay for results.' He is a, 'here today gone tomorrow politician.' I think the PI were likely in an invidious position, power as we know can be abusive and executive power is no exception. 'Probation' in my view, a hundred or more years in its history, will be here tomorrow. That is where my mind's eye is and PI can develop as a champion for the cause if given a chance. If it fails then we look elsewhere I suggest. I just do not see a credible alternative at this juncture.

******
Exactly, whatever the PI may say now, it has remained deafeningly silent over TR, the methods of implementation and the damage wrought to professional practice as a result. I will never join; not in a million years.

******
Why did NAPO support PI's birth if it does as you say it spells it's own end. NAPO surely saw some shared aims. They can co - exist and co - operate I would argue.

******
Dunno, possibly an attempt to be seen to be supportive of the directive labelled 'TR' (after all probation has always evolved to accommodate political and legislative changes of direction), without fully appreciating the ramifications of doing so on this occasion. A bit more clear sighted focus might have helped - and stronger representation of what the Members were saying.The rush to 'cosy up' to the idea made many Members feel they were being sold out.

******
Here's the thing. I am knackered, I have been at it all bloody day, trying to keep my head above water, my clients well-served and the public safe. During my working day I deleted Lord knows how many emails forwarded on by my manager "FYI" containing a plethora of training opportunities. I don't know if the PI is a good or bad thing, (starting to think it's a good thing) but we are drowning here in a sea of crap IT, lack of accommodation for our clients, a weekly round of contributions to the leaving present for a redundant colleague, the trauma of the departure of the redundant colleague, the effort of getting other equally shat on agencies to step up to MAPPA. Hell, this feels like an add on I haven't the time to engage with.

******
Sounds like my day! The only thing that keeps me going is my lovely colleagues who have gone through this experience with me. Unfortunately they are becoming fewer and fewer and the replacements seem to just want a job not a beloved career I hate what Probation has become.

******
The PI had every opportunity to speak out against TR and the destruction of a previous award winning public service, it failed to do so and I will not join for free, let alone pay. And perhaps Helen Schofield, you may wish to note that CRCs also work with ex veterans and not just NPS, have you consulted CRCs to ask about there strategy for working with this group of vulnerable adults? You may also like to consider that many of the staff working in the CRCs across this country are indeed staff shafted by MoJ. They are the very same people who helped probation trusts meet their gold standard service and who were credited with good or outstanding performance until Grayling destroyed our Service. 

It's not the staff doing the daily job that has resulted in the failure of TR, it's the models of delivery having to be run on a shoe string because the MoJ couldn't get their figures right and greedy profiteers put money before the needs of people, something the Tory Government promotes. Shame on Grayling, shame on Tory and Lib Dem government and MPs, shame on the majority of Chiefs Officers of Probation Trusts, shame on other public sector workers and indeed the public for allowing this mess to happen. The world was warned but no one listened and now we all pay the price, the disaster unfolds and everyone is now gasping.

******
"The use of the three terms "probation, rehabilitation and resettlement" is very deliberate in the Probation Institute. Although we have retained the name "probation" in our title (it would be a travesty to lose it) we are very clear in our wish to include practitioners, managers and leaders right across all the organisations working in this field".

This statement sums up what the PI is. Not for probation, not for probation practitioners, and the bottom line not a "probation" institute. Yes we have called for a professional association for many years (a role Napo should have filled) but this is not it. I know nobody that's joined and I'm not surprised.

******
Here lies a the very real dilemma of the 'Duty Of Care' which many of those reading this Blog would have hoped/wanted from PI. However, I also accept it was never going to 'stand against' TR or pro-actively campaign to highlight its impact on our Staff/Communities/Working arrangements. Although, I do value it drawing the public to a number of recent damning Inspections. Rather, it seeks to salvage some of the remnants of Probations Essence, Rich Legacy, Identity and Professionalism. I too echo many of the sentiments shared above and feel that sense of powerlessness and shame neither, to have the words and or the voice to consistently 'Stand Up/By a Much Loved Public Service. Many of whom, still firmly believe 'Unification' is the only way forward. 

I acknowledge that the PI is working on the basis of 'Moving Forward' and that of 'letting go' of the past and needing to embrace/work with something that many are still fundamentally opposed too. That's where our thoughts, feelings, heart and voice remain in an altogether different place and that's where for me the dilemma remains. Sending best wishes to all our staff/Unions and PI as we all continue in altogether different and increasingly divergent ways to try to make sense of TR. Also to ALL those staff we have and continue to lose along the way.

******
The government like to blame the use of psychoactive drugs for all the ills of today's penal system. But that's just spin. They certainly impact on daily life in prisons, but staff shortages and the impact those shortages have on daily routine and facilities for prisoners is certainly a far greater driver for the growth of violence and disturbances in prisons then drugs. There are far too many people in prison in the first place, and increasingly it's becoming a place to house those with mental health problems as mental health services in the community continue to be cut back. The number of people walking the landings with serious mental health problems is a far more dangerous concern then psychoactive drugs.

******
I agree, it's not the drugs, as the truism goes, it's the economy, stupid. The MoJ are going to provide a cash injection of 14m. In the last five years Noms have inflicted cuts of £1bn and the cuts to the public sector prisons were £334m. And they did it through fraudulent benchmarking which was the cover story for making the cuts. The reduction in prison officers and in particular the loss of experienced staff is what has plunged prisons into crisis. It was said at the time that cuts would be dangerous to health & safety - the death and harm statistics, neglect of the mentally-ill, are now bearing out those predictions.

******
Another knee jerk reaction? Problem solving courts would only work if all the relevant services are in place and can be accessed quickly! With offenders waiting months for counselling and scarce resources this will only flag up the deficiencies. What we need are better resourced services and more time with offenders. Magistrates are already sentencing without PSR's in many cases! I could do so much more to support my caseload and still try to make some time to take vulnerable offenders to appointments they may otherwise often miss or advocate on their behalf regarding housing or mental health services, but I am overstretched and this will only get worse with further cuts as part of so called transforming rehabilitation.

******
Article from the Howard League doing the rounds. The private companies whinging that they were misled and now they are losing money! Hey folks, this is not a game of monopoly. You gambled and were prepared to risk public safety for profit and now you are throwing your dummy out of the cot because MoJ is refusing to let you get away with it. End the contracts then and hand the keys back and do everyone a favour. Get on with what you do best. Selling brie, shoes or dodgy dealings in Saudi Arabia are much better suited to you than public protection. Stick with what you know and let the real professionals get back to work.

******
I work as custody probation officer in a prison and whilst am extremely busy as we all are, I will say that OMU across the disciplines are extremely stretched. Senior Prison officers who are supposed to be managing offenders sentences are always tasked out on the wings dealing with self harming, assaults on staff and offender on offender assaults, escorts to hospitals and covering staff shortages within the regime due to extreme staff shortages. This is not what they signed up too and in turn leaves administration staff to pick up work in their absence. Unfortunately, admin staff are briefed to request email as they won't know who they are talking to. If OM'S were able to get in with their contracted role, that line if communication would be possible and negate need for email request. 

As custody probation officer, I am in contact with all OM'S in community on my caseload so all know who to contact and deal with issues as they arise. That is because, although I am extremely busy, I am in the fortunate position to be on hand to deal with issues as they arise. The government led benchmarking exercise and fair and sustainable initiative was unrealistic and like TR and TTG has left absolute chaos within each establishment. Please don't think that requests via email are prisons being awkward but more a case of no resources. Prisons as are probation are in a right mess at the moment.

******
I was surprised to read the FT article yesterday, especially as it wasn't on the back of any particular event or incident. It was more the providers whinging, it was a straight forward accusation, the government misled us and sold us a pup. I expected more to be said in today's more 'lowbrow' press, but not a mention. So why yesterday and why the FT?
I have no idea really, but it leads to a lot of head scratching and pondering. It could be perhaps that the providers (especially with the Working Links saga posted above), that maybe the providers are arguing both ends, to create a space where they can simply step away from the contract with minimal penalty, or better still, have the government take the contracts back? I get the feeling that TR is being spoken about very seriously in quiet little rooms in Whitehall at the moment, and not just on this blog.

******
Probation in London has always been particular challenge to run even when it was being done by people who more or less knew what they were doing. It continues to have a transient offender population, higher risk offenders, lot's of prisons, and suffers staff retention problems that require you to constantly recruit. It's a special case just as policing is a special case in the capital and needs careful handling. LondonCRC is now a very unattractive and hazardous place to work with no light at the end of the tunnel and incentives to go the extra mile. 

I have not met one member of staff who can honestly say they wouldn't jump ship if they could get the same money elsewhere. MTCnovo and those they have appointed to run LCRC are a bad joke. The former senior managers all got their enhanced voluntary redundancies and some of them are now showing up cashing in on bits of work and clearing off again. But the rest of us are saddled with a ridiculous bunch of probation amateurs consisting of prison service senior job hoppers and assorted opportunists who seem to pop up when there's a job going and jump off the moving train shortly before it crashes. We didn't choose to work for who now blame us for the failure of their ridiculous untested operating model that we all told them wouldn't work. Unfortunately no one imagined it could get this bad.

Court Report

Seen on Facebook:-

I keep saying that this NPS\CRC professional divide will happen and widen as time goes by, as new staff join both services, and it is! I am now hearing that CRC staff are feeling that they are being spoken down to by Prison and NOMS staff as well as Courts and some previous colleagues. Personally I wouldn't take this but then again I'm an old Probation gunslinger. I would not like to be joining either service in this era.

I think it will actually be easier for those joining now. At least they know what they're coming into. As a CRC PO who still sits in an office with NPS, I still struggle to accept all the tasks I miss from my preTR role, especially when listening to other staff still doing this work. It's difficult not to feel 'second class' sometimes, even though I know sifting was largely down to luck (or in my case, maternity leave). I for one will be glad when we do move out, I think it will actually improve morale.

Recently a Magistrate in our area admitted he did not realise that CRC staff were still the same staff from the 'old service', he thought we had all be drafted in by Interserve. They also refused to revoke an Order for good progress (which was entirely justified) because we were 'just doing it for targets'. Unfortunately we are getting a lot of resistance from the NPS court staff who are not helping the situation and are sometimes just rude to us.

I am NPS court staff and it's really hard because we don't mean to be resistant or rude and I always email the CRC OMs to tell them what's happened in my breach courts in case they need to show it to managers or something. The revoking for good progress is a really contentious issue because court services have had a directive that the applications aren't necessary (because when an Order is made, 12 months is just the maximum, but if they do their RAR and UPW in 8 months that isn't especially good progress, it's just them doing what they were ordered to do) and I can see the court services point of view. But then equally I understand that for OMs having lots of cases sat on your case load who have finished is hugely problematic and you want to get rid of them. Aside from that, CRC senior management is pushing OMs to put the applications in court, NPS court managers are telling us we have to accept them, sign them off and list them in the courts, then make the applications despite knowing the outcome will be a rejection (all applications are currently being rejected) and HMCTS managers are telling legal advisers to reject them.

I'm really sorry you feel that NPS staff are being rude and unhelpful (I hope it wasn't me) as we are also at the end of our tether, not that that's any excuse. I'm a Xxxxxxx Mags CDO and if you need any help with breaches or applications then you're more than welcome to phone me personally because nobody should be being rude to you, you're all following directions same as us and the courts. I try to remember that you are Xxxxx trust colleagues and friends and you're under lots of pressure and it isn't OMs fault that management can't get things right at all.

Thanks, I think you hit the nail right on the head, we are all just at the end of our tether!

It doesn't give people the right to be rude though, we really should all be saving that for higher management!!!

Awful to hear that people feel so low altho I'm very lucky n never have any problems with Xxxxxxxx or Xxxxxxx court staff - they're ace x

Thanks, if all applications were for orders a long way along, that would be one thing. However, a blanket ban on revocations is outrageous and needs to be challenged, if any senior management can be found willing to support their field colleagues. Not likely though.

I think in fairness, the difficulty in Xxxxxxxx and obviously I'm not sure about other areas but I'd be interested to find out, is that our breach courts (2 each week with around 25 available slots in each) currently are 50-60% applications. Almost all of those applications are to extend the 12 month period in which someone should complete UPW, which the courts are arguing doesn't need to happen, a CO doesn't die til the hours are done so why are we clogging up available slots with those apps when they were never seemed necessary pre split, and then applications for people who have simply done their requirements within the allotted time (ie they've done 100 hours UPW in 5 months) which also would never have come back to court pre split.

CRC are being told to make the applications, so it means time taken to write reports, NPS court staff like me are checking them and signing them and listing them and making the applications which takes a lot of time, and then court legal advisers have been told to refuse them because they just aren't necessary. It's causing really bad feeling because sometimes I think OMs think we aren't putting forward a good argument in court but in reality, once the legal adviser sees the information, court officers barely get to say anything from the report before they get refused. Senior management from the CRC have been to court and have spoken to managers there but as someone in the middle it's hard to figure out what was said because they're both still ploughing ahead with their own decisions leaving NPS piggy in the middle.

Partly it is an unfortunate side effect of conflicting targets and changes to practice on both sides. Also compounded by changes to court practice. Before we could adapt to the needs of the Court and Probation would adjust accordingly and all staff would be pulling together. I guess it is easier to grump at your old colleagues than get targets changed.

Myself and several CRC colleagues were transferred to the new TTG teams and now work from inside a Prison. A prison officer said he felt sorry for us as we had been demoted, asked why he thought that, apparently a NPS PO had told him that was the case and that NPS had retained the best staff. Also when we ring around re offenders that are now in Prison the number of times we are told we aren't qualified to deal with NPS offenders. The mind boggles tbh, we were one united front not long ago and had little say in where we ended up in the split yet lots seem to have forgotten when we all had each others backs. A very sad affair x

It is a very sad affair. It's also sad when our colleagues and good friends from CRC have been moved out of offices and told they cannot come in as they are not NPS. For gods sake it's all pathetic xx

If I heard any NPS staff make such outrageous comments about CRC colleagues  - as you well know - they'd get both barrels... I'm hoping the delightful prison officer was just meddling!

You would tell them in no uncertain manner I am sure, as would Xxxxxx, you are sadly in the minority it would seem these days. As for the Prison Officer he was stating what his wife had told him and was surprised and apologetic when he found out the truth. The amount of times we are spoken to in a not so pleasant manner is now becoming the norm. Several trainee PO's telling our qualified with many years under their belts that they don't know enough or aren't experienced enough to deal with their offenders. I have no idea where they are getting their superiority complex from xx

I'm truly astounded... & bloody furious. Staff - like yourself with a few yrs in - will have forgotten more than the trainees have learned - cheeky sods...do you mean his wife was NPS? She needs to be reminded mischievous gossip & meddling is wholly inappropriate from an alleged professional. Just sorry for the trouble from a few x

Yeah his wife is NPS PO, sad really. As for the trainees I still laugh when they want to revoke an SSO, er no you activate it, or tell me a licence has ended because our involvement has, er no licence has an expiry date we have no control over. But hey what do I know lol. I just laugh to myself tbh, it's the best way xx

My god it's disgraceful. Some of the best PO are with the CRC go no further than the staff at Xxxxxxx. And if I heard a trainee telling staff they don't know enough they would get my foot up their arse xxx

Sad times xx

I'm NPS and I wouldn't be too happy to hear people talk about CRC staff that way. We shouldn't be split like this in attitude, even though we're physically different now.

Guest Blog 22

“Go ahead and judge me, just remember to be perfect for the rest of your life”

At the invitation of Jim, I am writing a guest blog for the site looking at the experience of probation from the client’s point of view and touching on some of the points made in various recent posts about the probation service.

I wish I could say that my experience of probation has been a positive one but it has, unfortunately been anything but. This applies to probation both inside prisons and outside in the community. To date I have had five different offender supervisors and four offender managers in four and a half years. Just one of those individuals, an offender supervisor, was what I would deem even competent at the job and who treated me as a human being and did anything to help. The rest have left a lot to be desired on a professional level. This, to me is a shocking indictment that lays bare a crisis in the probation service that seems not to be touched on at all by anything I’ve read in the media or on blogs and goes far beyond the current reorganisations and the chaos thereby caused. The attitude of a large percentage of probation staff towards clients appears to be, at best, unproductive and, at worst, offensive and potentially a breach of legal rights.

At the end of the day, all of the OM’s and OS’s, bar the one mentioned, have treated me as nothing more than a crime statistic; an attitude everyone who has been in prison gets heartily sick of because it appears to be the default setting of the majority of prison staff, that is when they aren’t treating you as a really really stupid child.

Absolutely none of my OM’s and OS’s have bothered getting to know me as a human being or have attempted to find out what my background is (no PSR was done so there is nothing in my file about my background). I apparently came into being the moment I was imprisoned and everything that went before is completely irrelevant according to these various OM’s and OS’s simply because it is not in the file. If it’s not in the file apparently it doesn’t exist. Quite how I managed to get through life to my late 40’s apparently not existing is perplexing.

On a personal level, I find this attitude highly offensive, not the least of which is that a crime statistic didn’t commit any crime, a human being did. I am the sum of my experiences and if you do not understand where I come from you will not be able to understand what I did or where I am going or what I need to get there.

On a more esoteric level this complete lack of interest in me as a human being is really disturbing. How can anyone possibly help me to lead a law abiding life, help me reduce my risk of committing crime and help me turn my life around if they have not the slightest understanding of me as an individual, as a human being or even any interest in getting to know that human being? All the assessment tools in the world will fail to accurately predict my actual risk or my actual needs if you do not engage with me and ask those very basic questions that for some really bizarre reason simply do not get asked. Ever. These are:

What caused you to offend in the first place?

And what would stop you from reoffending in the future?

I know the answers to those central questions. Absolutely no probation officer does because they simply haven’t bothered to ask these questions. Therefore every single OASys or other assessment that has ever been done of me is a waste of paper because these central and essential questions have not been asked. This is clearly a major failing in the system and appears to be directly due to a total lack of interest in the offender as a person.

“But we have no time to get to know clients” I hear many voices wail. Really? You don’t have the time or the interest in making the time to get to know the client? Just consider that there may well be a lot less breaches of licence and community sentences and a lot less offences committed by people on licence if you did.

If you really did have a genuine interest in getting to know your client and this attitude was built into all interactions with a client this would raise your ability to accurately predict risk and identify needs and problems as assessments would be based on actual fact and accurate information rather than guesswork, assumption and personal bias. You’d also build up a relationship based on trust and mutual respect which could only be beneficial for everyone involved. On a personal level I’m far more likely to be open and honest and forthcoming if I believe that that person has a genuine interest in me and is someone I can trust to act in my best interests and who works with me not against me. I can’t see that this would be any different for anyone else.

I would suspect that any offender if asked would be able to tell you, based on their actual experience of probation, what they understand the role of a probation officer is. We also understand what it SHOULD be and the huge gulf that exists between the two. Theory and practice simply do not meet.

Shouldn’t one of the central tenets of a probation officer’s role be to get to know and understand the client and what their needs actually are (as opposed to what their perceived needs are) so that you are able to tailor any challenges and interventions to the actual, real, tangible needs of the client? If you don’t bother to engage the human being and get to know the human being and only go by what is in a file (which is quite often completely inaccurate with incomplete information and in some cases information that is so wildly wrong as to verge on defamatory) how can anything you do possibly be argued to be of any use, relevance or applicable?

What follows on from this is absolutely no probation officer actually understands what my needs are and makes decisions based on an assessment of what they think my needs are which bears zero relation to what the needs are. They certainly don’t understand my needs better than I do - after all I am the one living my life and not my PO. I live my life every day; they see me once a month for 20 – 30 minutes and an awful lot less than that when I was in custody. I am not stupid (in fact I have more qualifications and a much higher IQ than my current OM). I am perfectly capable of analyzing my behaviour accurately especially after having undergone several years of very productive counselling both in and out of custody. I know myself and my needs far better than my current OM who has never made the slightest effort to get to know me as a human being in the two years she has had my file. She wields enormous power over me and clearly relishes being able to wield such power over people leading to what I can only describe as the most dysfunctional relationship I have ever had with anyone to the extent that I feel physically sick with stress and worry in the 48 hours before each monthly meeting.

Challenging me, which Jim has said is the role of probation (whatever happened to befriend and advise?), is a fruitless exercise because the challenge is being made without the proper knowledge behind it. I have already identified the problems, the needs and yes, the wants, which to be frank are often completely indistinguishable from the needs. I know what needs to be put in place to help me get back on an even keel and lead a law abiding life. My PO doesn't because she has never bothered to get to know me in any way in the past two years. Our “conversations” degenerate into total farce as a result.

In fact, nothing any PO has ever said to me has been in any way helpful, reasonable, viable or useful in terms of either analyzing my behaviour, challenging it or providing help and support as to the way forwards because they have pretty much zero knowledge of me as a human being, of the way I think and how I view the offence. Of course this may be down to PO's who are simply bad at their jobs and who really shouldn't be working in probation just as there are a significant number of prison officers who took the job so that they can legitimately bully people and shouldn't therefore be in the job.

Ironically considering challenge is supposed to be a central feature of the probation relationship, I've noticed that PO's don't like to be challenged by clients over anything even when the client is wholly justified such as when a PO breaches a client’s legal right. Why? It’s a very hypocritical stance to take. If someone is able to challenge me about my failings, I am certain able to and will turn round to judge them for their failings whether that be a failure to do the job properly and in accordance with the law or whether that is an actual breach of my legal rights. If I am expected to take responsibility for my actions so is the PO. It’s hardly unreasonable to expect that a PO does their job in accordance with the law and the provisions laid out in the various PI’s at the very least, leaving aside anything else and I very much doubt anyone would disagree with me on that. Yet simply because someone is a probation officer this apparently gives them leave to never accept responsibility for any of their actions. Being a PO does not mean that you have some magical get out of jail free card that excuses and are absolved of any failure of responsibility. Stones and glass houses and all that.

I agree with Jim that the relationship between client and PO shouldn't be about winning popularity contests but there is a huge difference between winning a popularity contest and actually treating clients as human beings who have a brain and use it. What the probation relationship should be about is building a genuine meaningful relationship where there is trust and respect on both sides. Where the PO has a genuine interest in the client and in helping them with their actual (as opposed to perceived) needs and the client genuinely does their best to comply with their licence and lead a law abiding life you will have a meaningful, productive and beneficial relationship. It’s not rocket science but it does require that both parties in that relationship invest the same level of commitment into making the relationship work and it isn’t left to just one party to do so. Which appears in the minds of the PO’s and also management to be the sole responsibility of the client.

I’ve had some interaction with management due to being forced to file a complaint about my PO. I was very patronisingly informed by a senior manager that it was MY responsibility and mine alone to build a productive relationship with my OM. Excuse me? Any relationship is a two way street and both parties in the relationship need to put in the effort to build a productive working relationship not just one party. We’ve all had at least one relationship in our lives where we did all the giving and the other party did all the taking and know how destructive that relationship was. But apparently management does not consider it part of a PO’s role to make any effort to build a productive relationship with a client because they have made it abundantly clear that my OM has no responsibility at all to make any effort to build a productive working relationship with me. No wonder there is no interest from the OM in doing this.

Unfortunately my experience is far from unusual. During the time I was inside and since release I have talked to hundreds of people who have firsthand experience of the probation service. Sadly, very few of them have had positive experiences of probation because of the way probation officers both inside and outside of prison treat their clients. Oh the client may tell you to your face when they leave supervision that you’ve helped them and no doubt some of them will genuinely mean it. But far from all of them.

Most of them are probably telling you what you want to hear. Just as 99% of those going on offender behaviour courses tell the course facilitators what they want to hear. Sorry if this comes as a surprise. I’ve seen so many offenders literally blow sunshine up the ass of the course facilitator and their probation officer simply to be able to progress/get parole/get probation off their back and not mean a single word of what they are saying.

They are simply playing the game because that is what the system is all about at the end of the day. Just like the judicial system is not about finding out the truth of what happened but about which side plays the game the best, progression through prison or probation in the community is not based on understanding why you committed an offence and putting in place concrete and productive steps to ensure you don’t reoffend, it’s about keeping probation happy with your answers by telling them what they want to hear and fulfilling the tick box mentality that appears to exist throughout the sector even if you don’t mean a word of it. This also strikes me as a wholly dishonest way of running anything. Ticking boxes, fulfilling criteria, hearing what you want to hear seems to be more important than building productive working relationships with human beings. Absolute madness.

Prisons do not work in cutting or reducing crime no matter what Michael Howard and Chris Grayling like to think. Probation does not work either. Sorry to burst the bubble. I’m pretty sure that the recent statistical reduction in people reoffending whilst on probation has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the probation service but is more likely to be a direct result of people doing what needs to be done themselves to get their lives straightened out.

Until the whole ethos of probation changes, probation is going to fail as a service. I honestly can’t see how reporting to a kiosk once a month is going to be any less advantageous to either client or service provider than the current system is because the current system is failing clients for the most part. In fact for a lot of people it may well be more productive. I’m aware that politics and political rhetoric and agendas have overtaken probation and changed it from its original goals and ways of working but that does not excuse the change in attitude of either probation management or probation staff towards clients which has apparently occurred over time.

I do not know what the answer is nor whether the changes that are occurring in the system will make it better or worse but I can categorically state that probation will continue to fail clients for as long as the majority of PO’s fail to see or treat clients as human beings.

Probation Client.

RIP OM Part 2

This is the Annex A referred to in part one. The Annex B table is virtually unintelligible and has been omitted.  

PAPER TO THE OMCP BOARD OF 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 – ANNEX A

Offender Management Change Programme Board

Meeting Date:	2 September 2013
Agenda Item:	4
Paper Title:	Case Management Responsibilities in Prisons
Purpose of Item:	For decision
Circulation Restrictions:	Board members only

OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CASES DURING THE CUSTODIAL ELEMENT OF A SENTENCE

Issue

1. Confirming where offender management responsibility for offenders sentenced to 12 months or more rests during the core custodial period.

Background

2. Since the introduction of the Rehabilitation Programme (RP), the Through the Gate (TTG) project has designed resettlement services to support offenders during the transitional period between custody and community. There is a particular emphasis on the last 3 months of the sentence, when TTG providers will provide services direct to offenders within resettlement prisons. TTG is also realigning prisons to ensure that 80% of offenders are released from a resettlement prison in their Contract Package Area.

3. Offender management responsibilities to cover the core custodial period (i.e. rehabilitation, rather than resettlement work) for offenders serving 12 months or more are out of scope for TTG. The decision for allocation of OM responsibility during this time falls to the Offender Management Change Programme (OMCP), but must take account of the changes under RP and the Prison Unit Cost Programme (PUCP).

4. The original Offender Management Model introduced two new roles: the Offender Manager (based in the community); and the Offender Supervisor (based in prisons). The Offender Manager was directly responsible for the management of all cases in scope of the Offender Management Model, meaning they were tasked with driving the sentence, including completion of all assessment and sentence planning activity. In these cases, the Offender Supervisor (OS) was tasked with the day to day delivery of the sentence plan, in liaison with the Offender Manager at key stages. The “in-scope” cases covered all offenders serving 12 months or more who were assessed through OASys as High or Very High Risk of Harm; all those sentenced to Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP); and all those identified as Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPOs).

5. The introduction of the Manage the Custodial Sentence (MTCS) Service Specification (transitional version) in October 2012 brought into scope of Offender Management all other offenders sentenced to 12 months or more. The newly added offenders were those assessed at Low or Medium Risk of Serious Harm (ROSH). During the custodial period these offenders were allocated to the direct management responsibility of the OS, rather than being managed by an Offender Manager (OM) in the community. The OS was, therefore, responsible for assessment and sentence planning for these cases.

6. As a result, under the transitional MTCS Service Specification, some cases are managed by the prison and others by the OM in the community, during the core custodial period.

7. Since the first implementation of offender management for custodial cases in November 2006, it has proved difficult to deliver the original vision of the OM model. In particular, OMs based in the community have not consistently been able to “drive” the sentence during custody. There have been a number of reasons for this, including time constraints and geography restricting OMs from visiting the relevant prisons. Whilst video conferencing and teleconferencing allow some communication, these do not allow OMs to build effective relationships and therefore authority with their offenders. In addition, OMs, with some exceptions, have found it difficult to lead and direct activity from outside the prison environment. Finally, OMs have often had to prioritise other cases - e.g. those already on licence, or subject to an imminent Parole Review. In practice, the majority of cases are “driven” by the OS instead, albeit with key input from the OM at review stages.

8. A number of reports, including joint OM inspections by HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation, have highlighted these difficulties, notwithstanding some examples of good practice.

(Annex A provides an outline of some of the concerns raised in inspections and other reports in relation to the existing Offender Management approach to cases whilst in custody.)

9. As a result of the persistent difficulties, before the TRP was introduced, it was the intention of the OMCP to transfer management responsibility for all cases to the OS whilst they were in custody, in line with the Specifications, Benchmarking and Costing (SBC) teams’ original plans.

Discussion

10. Following the changes introduced by the TRP, it is a good time to consider whether this intention should still be pursued. We envisage two broad options:

i) Mirror the TRP split of cases with regards to OM in custody:  retained National Probation Service (NPS) cases could be managed by the community-based probation OM, whilst the contracted out cases could be managed by the prison-based OS during the custodial period.

The benefits of this model include retaining continuity for NPS-managed cases; and employing the expertise of community-based probation officers for MAPPA/high-risk cases. However, the risks of this model are that for retained cases, all the difficulties described above associated with managing a case from the community would persist.

ii)  Transfer responsibility for all custodial cases to prison-based staff. Under this arrangement, assessments and sentence plans would be completed by the custody-based OS in all cases. However, for NPS retained cases, a seconded probation officer in the prison would have responsibility for driving and overseeing the case, working with the OS.* It is envisaged that a community-based OM would still be designated for NPS-retained cases. However, demands on these officers would reduce: they would no longer bear formal responsibility to drive the case, but they would still be advised of progress and given the opportunity to contribute to the case at key stages, including sentence planning reviews. Further, at the 6 months pre-release stage, or at commencement of any parole process, responsibility for the case, including assessment, would transfer from custody to the community.**

The benefits of this approach would be that the prison-based staff would be given formal responsibility to drive the sentence for all cases (which has often become the default position in any case). Responsibility for the offender management of contracted out cases would therefore sit with Band 4 OS's; whilst the responsibility for NPS-retained cases would sit with seconded probation officers in the relevant prison, who then would be able to pro-actively drive the sentence plan delivery and build up a direct relationship with the offender, working with the OS.

However, there would also be some risks to this model: some continuity across the length of the sentence could be lost, including through prison transfers. In addition, OS's in prisons do not have the full range of OM skills, training or experience that probation officers do and they are sometimes expected to perform other functions within the prison. Further, the PUC benchmarking has, in some cases, reduced the overall resource in custody, whilst Fair and Sustainable has also impacted on the numbers of experienced prison-based OS's in post, putting strain on the system. The success of the model would therefore depend heavily on the quality and experience of the seconded probation officer for NPS-retained cases, as well as strong support to OS’s and their managers to build the skills and experience to maintain high standards of OM for all cases.

11. The Offender Assessment and Management Section (OAMS) considers that some of the risks of Option 2) can be mitigated. OAMS is working with the Business Development Group on the design and implementation of the new seconded probation role for prisons, referred to above. An initial design for the seconded probation role has been agreed at ISAB and is due for consultation shortly with prison Governors, Probation Trusts, and other key stakeholders.

12. OAMS will also focus on developing OSs’ abilities, through case reviews and advice, improved training and support networks such as the OMU Managers’ Forum.

On balance, it is recommended that the original intention to transfer OM responsibility to prisons should be pursued, in parallel with the development of the new probation role in custody, which will need to be adequately resourced. Resource risks and loss of experience around OM in custody following the PUC and Fair and Sustainable should continue to be monitored closely.

(A summary table of the two options with benefits and risks is at Annex B.)

Decision required:

13. This paper seeks the Boards views on the proposal to:

• Transfer management responsibility for all cases to the prison during the custodial period; 

• Retain a seconded probation oversight for the retained NPS cases, to ‘drive’ the sentence, working with the OS, until the point of formal handover to the community Offender Manager six months pre-release; 

• Confirm the principle that all NPS retained cases will still have a named community Offender Manager from the start of sentence, and be able to contribute to sentence planning meetings and other key events as necessary. 

14. Subject to the views of the OMCP Board, a paper seeking final approval will be drafted for the Implementation and Service Acceptance Board (ISAB).

GM

* There would remain a question of whether the community Offender Manager should still complete an initial assessment and sentence plan for all Extended Determinate and Life sentence cases, as now.

** Should an offender get a negative decision following a parole hearing, the case would return to the prison for assessment and management purposes, until the next parole review process commenced.

RIP OM Part 1

I've got a funny feeling that the TR omishambles is going to mirror the weather over the coming weeks. In these circumstances readers are advised to fasten their seat belts and prepare for a very bumpy ride indeed. 

Up until now most of the attention has focused on how the TR omnishambles will affect probation in the community, but what about seconded colleagues in prison? Well, I've become aware of the contents of a very interesting set of documents concerning what those bright young things down at MoJ HQ have planned, and I thought I'd share them with you. I think most would agree that the lack of probation expertise at the top is definitely beginning to show.

This is the first then and apologies for the length, but this is important stuff and will require some careful and critical consideration. I'll hold back from making comment at this stage, but readers are strongly invited to comment. 

Management of cases during the custodial period

At the OMCP Board of 2 September 2013, CL presented a paper (attached in full at Annex A) that argued that offender management responsibility for MAPPA and high risk cases should be transferred from community-based OMs (the current OM Model), to seconded probation officers in custody. This proposal was in line with the original plan of the Specifications, Benchmarking and Costing teams.

The paper argued that the benefits of this change would include:

• answering criticisms of HM Inspectorates of Probation and Prisons of the present ‘end to end’ model, which state that the original goal of case continuity has never been realised;
• allowing the OM in custody to build up a professional relationship with their offender cohorts face to face, thus improving the offender experience of Offender Management;
• enabling the OM in custody to drive the sentence plan more effectively; and
• ensuring prisoners’ sentences are not left poorly managed during the core custodial period because OMs must prioritise their community caseload. 

The paper acknowledged that there were also risks and potential drawbacks to this approach, but that these were outweighed by the benefits. The Board discussion explored some of these risks and asked for further detail about them. The Board also requested further information regarding cost and resource.

Specifically, the Board raised the following queries:

• Further information on the costs of the proposal;
• A concern that probation staff had no line management responsibility in prisons could mean that relevant intelligence sharing in prison may not be fully integrated, and as a consequence critical information is not used to inform risk and case management;
• The consequence of not having a single Offender Manager (OM) throughout a whole sentence is there is a potential impact on consistency and continuity of management;
• a further assessment of the impact on community-facing agencies, particularly MAPPA;
• the impact on the experience of the offender should be examined further; and
• the impact of the proposal on the TTG process for short sentence NPS cases should be further explained. 

Following this discussion, I have carried out a round of consultation in order to bottom out these issues. Consultees have included:

• West Midlands Offender Management Regional Group
• London Probation Trust (Resettlement & SFO Manager, and all prison-facing SPOs)
• Head of Offender Management, HMP Chelmsford
• HM Inspectorate of Probation
• HMP Inspectorate of Prisons
• Directorate of Probation and Contracted Services
• Transforming Rehabilitation Programme Team (including the OM design, ‘Through the Gate’, Public Probation, and costs leads
• Business Development Group, NOMS
• MAPP and Public Protection Team, OMPPG
• HMPS Public Protection Lead, South Central Region

This paper discusses each of the queries in turn.

Costs
     
The activity around the management of a case during custody does not increase much in this option against that which is currently required. Based on the core principles of the ASPIRE model (Assess, Sentence Plan, Implement, Review, Evaluate), the OM, wherever they are based, will deliver the same role. Rather, some of current activity will transfer from the community to the custodial setting. The key activity to transfer would be the completion of assessment and planning (OASys). Other key tasks relating to the oversight and directing of a sentence are already captured within the emerging benchmark for the custody-based probation role and do not, therefore, represent uncosted pressures.

The tasks that will remain with the community probation officer and not transfer are still to be confirmed, but an example is that the community probation officer might still be invited to sentence planning meetings alongside both the key custodial staff, to keep up to date with the case, meaning that three staff could be involved in a task that previously required only two. Currently, some community Offender Managers travel into the prison to interview offenders and attend sentence planning meetings, as opposed to using video links). This practice of physically attending the prison will not be necessary under the proposed option and, therefore, could cancel out the resource impact of having a third person involved in sentence planning meetings. However, if this aspect does develop into a significant resource gap that cannot be bridged, some of the desirable but not essential elements of best practice could be covered as guidance of best practice, as opposed to mandatory actions.

So, whilst this proposal does impact on current cost model assumptions with regard to activity distribution, there is no major tangible change in overall offender manager resource, for the following reasons:

• the roles of Offender Supervisor, custody-based probation officer and community probation officer will be clearly defined to avoid any unnecessary duplication or overlap (see Annex B for a breakdown of the key roles during the custodial period);
• the responsibilities of custody-based probation staff in relation to overseeing and driving the NPS cohort cases are already built into the benchmarking role definition and assumptions and
• the resource for completing assessment and planning for Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPP) cases currently sits with the community. However, this is the same level of resource that would be required by the custody probation officer to do the same task 

It should be noted that, whilst we do not anticipate any significant increase in resource requirements across the business as a result of these proposed changes, there remain current gaps in provision, which the new model would need to deal with. OASys reviews and updated sentence plans are required throughout the custodial period for those managed by community probation, but these are not consistently delivered in practice for all cases. We will work with the Public Probation Directorate to ensure that sufficient resource is applied appropriately and that this critical work is therefore deliverable in future, whichever model is selected.

Probation staff influence in prisons

As highlighted above, there is a concern that probation staff have no line management responsibility within the prison which could affect the sharing of intelligence. If this were the case, it would impact on the quality of offender management.

It is envisaged that the custody-based probation officer, acting as OM for retained public cases, will be working closely and directly with a designated Offender Supervisor, thus improving the relationships and, therefore, the ability to effectively manage these cases. This working relationship is already replicated in many parts of the estate, although with seconded probation officers acting as Offender Supervisors.

With regard to the OM influence in prisons, it is the existing model that presents more difficulty: if the OM were based in the prison, there would be a far greater prospect of generating good working relationships and developing strong protocols around sharing of information and working towards common goals. The proposed new approach therefore actually improves the potential for the OM to drive the case and engage productively with prison colleagues.

Impact on continuity of not having a single OM throughout sentence

The intention of the original OM Model was to have a single OM for the duration of a sentence in order to provide continuity and stability of case management. However, existing practice has failed to deliver this aspiration. HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Probation have confirmed that in over 40% of cases, the Offender Manager has changed during the custodial period, and most often at the critical pre-release stage of the custodial period. This point aside, even where an offender has had a single OM throughout custody, the OM has usually proved unable to drive the sentence and to engage prison-based staff in offender management during this time. The opportunity to develop a good working relationship with the offender has proved limited, as OMs have not usually been able to meet the offender due to geographical and time constraints. Video conferencing has somewhat mitigated this effect, but not enough to allow the original intention to be fulfilled. Further, where the OM has visited, the prison regime impact on offender availability (relative low priority given to offender management meetings) has led to a number of meetings cancelled on the day, making the visit wasted. These conclusions have been a consistent finding of HMIP reports, further supported by a forthcoming National Audit Office report into the management of indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) cases.

It is true that the proposed option will mean the OM will change each time a prisoner transfers to another prison. For the most challenging and disruptive prisoners, this could imply several changes of OM. However, the norm (assuming the prison re-alignment work delivers its anticipated benefits) is likely to involve fewer transfers than currently, as there will be a clear purpose for each prison transfer, making it easier for staff to plan a logical transfer based on an individual’s sentence length and identified risks/needs. A critical aspect to get right, to make either approach work, is to improve the quality of handover. To this end, we have worked closely with the benchmarking team, to ensure the emerging seconded probation role is adequately resourced for such handovers to occur on prison transfer. The new OASys platform means assessments are more readily available immediately to the staff in the receiving prison, which will aid effective handovers. Further, the pre-release handover event is a key aspect of the ‘Through the Gate’ work stream of the Rehabilitation Programme. For the NPS and CRC managed cases, there is a costed requirement for this activity, which now needs appropriate guidance drafted and delivered by the Offender Management Change programme (OMCP) to ensure the handover of a case is not detrimental to the overall aims of the sentence. This task is part of our wider practice guidance plans.

Impact on community facing agencies and processes, particularly MAPPA

Fundamental to effective offender management is good quality involvement in and input to MAPPA and other public protection processes. Currently, a prison can struggle to obtain information in relation to MAPPA until nearer the end of a sentence. Even at that stage, there are too many examples where a MAPPA level is known, but not shared with the prison.

Further, often prisons as a whole don’t understand enough about the different levels of MAPPA, and the custody-based probation officer role could improve this significantly. Moving prisons away from relating public protection just to escape risk is an important developmental need for NOMS.

By having much more significant and present probation officer involvement throughout a custodial sentence, their accumulated knowledge of the offender would become invaluable when considering risk management arrangements for release. Further, the prison would be much more aware of the likely MAPPA level and risk management requirements before the final part of the sentence.

As described earlier, the proposed model does not negate the need for a designated community probation officer (CPO). The CPO would continue to have critical public protection responsibilities, including in relation to MAPPA and victims. The proposed option, as long as it is appropriately resourced, should not therefore pose a threat to these responsibilities. In fact, it potentially enhances them, as increased knowledge about the offender can translate into a more effective risk management plan developed between the community and custody probation officers. As noted by the Board, it is important that the roles and responsibilities of each of these officers are clearly outlined, and Annex B seeks to provide a detailed breakdown of those responsibilities in relation to MAPPA and other critical tasks.

Currently, the responsibility for opening a ViSOR record for violent offenders at MAPPA Levels 2 and 3 (Category 2) sits with the community Offender Manager, as lead worker. This means that often, the prison cannot record anything in ViSOR during the core part of the custodial period, as the record is not opened until the pre-release stage of sentence. By having the lead worker for these cases based in the prison, it means the ViSOR record can often be opened earlier, allowing the prison to start to record information, potentially as soon as custody commences. This would bring practice into line with what is currently achieved with Category 1 (sex offenders) MAPPA cases (all Levels), where the police are the lead workers and open the ViSOR record pre-custody.

At around 8 months pre-release, the community Offender Manager completes a screening, making a recommendation as to which MAPPA level an offender is to be managed at in the community, for approval by a MAPPA Board if level 2 or 3 is recommended. As the custody based probation officer will have had more engagement in the case during the custodial period (notwithstanding prison transfers), they would be best placed to make this recommendation of MAPPA level and present to the initial MAPPA Board. In order to ensure an effective handover, it is envisaged that the community probation officer would have sight of the screening and recommendation and also attend that initial MAPPA meeting. After this initial meeting, the formal handover of responsibilities would commence, and the community probation officer, as the lead worker, would attend all future MAPPA meetings, even if the offender was still in custody at the time of those further meetings.

The offender’s experience of OM

The new model should improve the OM experience of the offender. One of the more common complaints by prisoners is the lack of engagement with, or sight of, their OMs, until near, or even on, release. This perception suggests that currently, the continuity of individuals acting as OM has no real bearing on the offender’s experience of offender management, notwithstanding some examples of good practice. By contrast, under the proposed model, the OM, appropriately resourced, would be a visible figure, beyond a once annual meeting, seen to be proactively managing and, importantly, involved in the offender’s sentence.

Whilst the proposed option has the potential for some confusion, not least through transfer between prisons and the changes to OMs and Supervisors that would go along with this, if the model and practice (including handovers) were implemented well, this need not be a significant issue. Indeed, the developing seconded probation role has some allocated time already for familiarisation with new cases, including transfers, representing the opportunity to deliver a sound handover of cases between prisons. Further, OMCP would need to ensure that communications to offenders about the offender management model and changes was strong.

Taking into account the fact that Offender Supervisors are already changed at each transfer, there is some experience operationally as to how best to manage these changes. Processes on transfer must be handled as well as possible through policy and guidance, based on good practice, and this is a task for the OM Change Programme to deliver against.

Through the Gate Model for short sentence NPS cases

An issue was raised around the impact of the proposed approach on the NPS management of short sentence (under 12 months) cases. The intention for all cases is to handover at 6 months pre-release (or 8 months in MAPPA cases), or as long as possible before release, depending on length of sentence. Therefore, for short sentenced NPS-managed prisoners, the community probation officer would be responsible for the case from the beginning of the sentence, because there would be a maximum (subject to added days) of 6 months to serve in any case.

Other Suggested Improvements

It will remain important that all relevant intelligence is passed on to community probation and so to organisations like MAPPA and SOCA where relevant. We have two suggestions for improving these links.

1) Offender Management Units (OMUs) in prisons often do not have a high enough profile and status and are, therefore, not often able to influence other departments within the prison to a sufficient extent. This issue is evidenced through the constant use of officer Offender Supervisors to plug gaps on wings or go on escorts. Further, the challenges of delivering effective offender management around the prison regime and routine are significant, and it is common that scheduled sentence planning review meetings are cancelled as a direct result of a lack of understanding and importance attached to the work of OMUs by the wider prison. In order to resolve this, a number of changes would need to be made. One of these might be to improve the links that probation staff in prison have up the line of command. This should be aimed for and achievable as probation staff in the new world are directly employed in the same way as prison staff. Improved links would have a positive impact on the passing of intelligence to the community setting.

2) The establishment of the new National Probation Service structure will make the custody-based probation officer a NOMS role, as opposed to an external provider role. It also provides an opportunity to consider how offender management performance is reviewed. One option we are keen to explore with others is the introduction of a probation performance co-ordinator role, sitting with the regional Deputy Directors of Probation (DDP). This role, possibly at SPO level, might have two main functions:

• Support offender management activity in prisons, providing support and data to establishment SMTs in relation to offender management performance and effectiveness, and which also links to the NPS reporting line and, ultimately, through to NEMC.
• Oversee and monitor offender management performance in prisons, escalating issues for bilateral consideration between DDCs and DDPs, if necessary.

Conclusion

Following further consideration, and consultation with representatives of a number of stakeholders, it is clear that the proposed approach is the right one, is deliverable and has the potential to deliver improvement in the practice of managing cases throughout custody and into the community.

Work towards effective outcomes starts at the beginning of a sentence and should continue throughout the custodial period, and then into the community. The Through the Gate period is a critical one to get right, but for longer term offenders the OMCP has a responsibility to ensure that effective offender management is also in operation during the core custodial period. This proposed approach to managing cases during custody, coupled with the proposed changes to the seconded probation officer role in prisons, represents an opportunity to make a genuine and lasting difference to the quality of offender management practice in prisons. This, in turn, could give the community probation officer (and the CRC case workers for non NPS cases) a strong base upon which to build.

During the custodial period for the NPS cases, we have been unable, in the lifetime of the Offender Management model, to consistently manage and drive a sentence. This proposed approach gives a clear way of ensuring there is active management throughout this period of a sentence and it is a change we should pursue. As colleagues have pointed out, following principled assent to the proposal, it is important that further detailed work on the respective roles is completed and communicated, so as to provide absolute clarity on who is responsible for which aspect of offender management.

With all that said, senior colleagues in the Prison Unit Cost Programme and the Public Sector Prisons Directorate have expressed concern at the timing of the proposed change, in parallel with all the other changes impacting on both prisons and probation under TRP. TRP is currently locking down designs and NOMS have already started developing the operating models to deliver it. Therefore, whilst this remains an important change for the medium term improvement of offender management, it might be pragmatic to allow the TRP and Benchmarking changes to be put in place and become operational before its implementation.

This paper, therefore, proposes that:

1. the Board agrees that the proposal to move responsibility for managing an offender’s case during the custodial period to the prison (Offender Supervisors for CRC cases, and seconded Probation Officers for NPS cases) should be pursued in support of improving offender management practice;
2. the Board agrees that OMCP will not look to implement this change immediately, but will agree an appropriate implementation timescale with prison colleagues and will present this to NEMC for agreement. 

GM