More Of The Same

"This blog has become the black cloud that just wants to keep raining down on those trying their best to get through the bureaucracy to help people." Blog yesterday

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Albert Einstein

HMI Justin Russell delivers his verdict on yet another PDU and finds much the same. At what point is the MoJ and government going to face up to the harsh fact that probation is broken and it needs fixing? Merging it completely with HM Prison Service under the 'OneHMPPS' brand isn't going to fix it - it destroys it. Probation must become a separate agency and properly funded.

This is the Press release:-  

Probation service for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is ‘Inadequate’

The probation service, also known as a Probation Delivery Unit (PDU*), for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland has been rated as ‘Inadequate’ following an inspection by HM Inspectorate of Probation – scoring just two inspection points out a possible 27.

This inspection is one of two carried out in the Probation Service – East Midlands region recently. The second is Derby City PDU, which received an overall rating of ‘Requires improvement’ (also published on 09 February 2023).

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland PDU are, unfortunately, not alone in the challenges that have resulted in this rating of ‘Inadequate’. They have high workloads and are facing difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff – something we have seen nationally in our recent inspections. Without an adequate workforce, a service will struggle to supervise people on probation effectively and the consequences risk public safety. I urge the Probation Service to carefully consider our findings and bring about the vital support that PDUs, like this one, require.”

Inspectors found morale to be low and excessive workloads were taking their toll across the organisation. Despite this, inspectors found that staff are committed and dedicated to their roles and recognised recent efforts to recruit new probation officers and administration staff. The inspection also credited the service for its innovation, and the promise shown by the creation of specialist teams to support young adults and women.

However, we found the probation court team had a 43 per cent vacancy rate. As a result, people being sentenced without sufficient assessments and safeguarding enquiries being undertaken. Of the cases we looked at, just five per cent had sufficient quality of probation court report work.

Mr Russell added: “This PDU is operating at near crisis management levels. With insufficient staff across the organisation, it is only a matter of time before their ability to properly supervise people on probation and protect the local community is further diminished. I hope this inspection has highlighted, to the national Probation Service, that extensive help is required, and that assistance is provided to the service in prioritising their next steps.”

Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland PDU, and their East Midlands regional service, received 13 recommendations for improvement as a result of this inspection, including to improve vacancy rates, how they manage risk of harm, and provide more effective accommodation support services for people on probation.

--oo00oo--

From the full report:--

Foreword 

This was the first Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspection of probation services within Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland since unification of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and National Probation Service (NPS) in June 2021. This was a disappointing inspection. The quality of work delivered to manage people on probation was insufficient across all five of our standards for casework with particularly poor results for the quality of court reports. Overall, we have rated this PDU as ‘Inadequate’. 

Although staff were committed and dedicated to their roles, high workloads, a problem that has existed over a prolonged period of time, had taken their toll, leading to low morale across the PDU. 

As we have found in other recent PDU inspections, there were significant gaps in probation practitioner and administrative officer grades. These were most pronounced in the court team where there was a vacancy rate of 43 per cent. In addition to resourcing issues, we were particularly concerned about the quality of court work, with only five per cent of cases inspected being judged as sufficient. Essential assessments and domestic abuse and child safeguarding checks were missing in far too many cases. Despite efforts from the PDU and the region to improve the staffing levels, this remains a critical issue and a national approach is needed to assist with the appropriate recruitment and retention of staff. 

During this critical time, staff must be clear on their roles and responsibilities; however, messaging from leaders to staff regarding what to prioritise was not understood, which led to insufficient work being delivered to people on probation and to keep communities safe. Opportunities to utilise areas of business where there was more capacity were being missed and the PDU was operating at near crisis management levels. 

Improvements were needed in the quality of work to assess and manage risks that people on probation pose to the wider community. This was particularly poor in assessment, where only 31 per cent of cases we inspected had an assessment which effectively supported the safety of other people. 

Despite the resourcing challenges, we did see some evidence of innovation within the PDU, with the creation of young adults and women’s teams to improve the quality of work delivered to these groups. These teams were in their early stages and, like the rest of the PDU, their workloads are high, but aspirations for what can be delivered are positive. Good strategic partnership working had also been maintained. 

It is hoped that this inspection can help assist with the foundations needed to support the required improvement. This will, however, only be possible if appropriate regional and national support is in place to address the staffing needs. 

Justin Russell 

Chief Inspector of Probation

HMPPS Not Fit For Purpose

Here we are again with yet another SFO, exactly as predicted as a direct result of imposing part-privatisation of the Probation Service with TR. Reunification under HMPPS command and control is not the answer because that department is simply not fit for purpose. How long is it going to take before either the present government understands this, or more significantly, the Labour Party understands the Probation Service must be reconfigured as a distinct and separate agency. Todays HMI press release:-

Independent Serious Further Offence review of Jordan McSweeney

Background:

On 14 December 2022, Jordan McSweeney was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 38 years, having pleaded guilty to the murder and sexual assault of Ms Zara Aleena. These offences occurred as Ms Aleena walked home, alone, with McSweeney following her, before he subjected her to a sustained physical and sexual assault. Jordan McSweeney was subject to probation supervision when these offences occurred.

In July 2022, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice asked HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell to conduct an independent review into this case, as Jordan McSweeney was on probation when he is alleged to have committed these offences. The review was completed in January 2023.

Statement:

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “Jordan McSweeney should have been considered a high risk of serious harm offender. If he had, more urgent action would have been taken to recall him to prison, after he missed his supervision appointments on release from custody. The Probation Service failed to do so, and he was free to commit this most heinous crime on an innocent, young women. Our independent review brings into sharp focus the consequences of these missed opportunities and reveals a Probation Service, in London, under the mounting pressure of heavy workloads and high vacancy rates.

“McSweeney murdered Zara just days after being released from prison. During his sentence, he was considered a violent and threatening man – to other prisoners and to prison staff – and had carried weapons. Known to the criminal justice system, since 2005, McSweeney had been imprisoned many times before, and had displayed violent and racially aggravated behaviour. He also received a restraining order for an offence, against a woman, in 2021.

“All the evidence shows that McSweeney should have been assessed, on release from prison, as high risk of serious harm. Instead, he was incorrectly assessed as being of medium risk because each of the offences, his behaviours in prison, and his criminal history, had been reviewed in isolation. Probation staff involved were also experiencing unmanageable workloads made worse by high staff vacancy rates – something we have increasingly seen in our local inspections of services. Prison and probation services didn’t communicate effectively about McSweeney’s risks, leaving the Probation Service with an incomplete picture of someone who was likely to reoffend.

“Following his release from prison and successive appointments being missed, the Probation Service failed to take prompt action to recall him to custody. Once that decision had been made, there were also delays in signing the necessary paperwork to initiate the recall. Had this been done sooner, opportunities for the police to locate and arrest McSweeney would have been maximised.”

--oo00oo--

Highlights from the full report:-

1. Foreword 

On 14 December 2022, Jordan McSweeney was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 38 years, having pleaded guilty to the murder and sexual assault of Ms Zara Aleena. These offences occurred as Ms Aleena walked home, alone, with Mr McSweeney following her, before he subjected her to a sustained physical and sexual assault. This crime has devastated her family and shocked the local community and beyond. 

Jordan McSweeney was subject to probation supervision when these offences occurred. The Probation Service typically conducts a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review when an individual on probation commits a serious violent or sexual offence. However, in this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked me, as Chief Inspector of Probation, to conduct an independent SFO review into the Probation Service’s management of Jordan McSweeney.

This report sets out the findings of that independent review. My inspectors found that the assessment of the level of risk posed by Jordan McSweeney was inaccurate given information that was known regarding past offending, behaviour in custody and patterns of behaviour. Subsequently this impacted on the way his case was managed and the level of oversight he was subject to. 

Had the correct assessment of risk of harm been undertaken to identify that Jordan McSweeney posed a high risk of serious harm, actions taken in terms of pre-release planning, plans for accommodation on release and speed of response to non-attendance after release could have been significantly different and potentially more urgent. 

Following his most recent sentence, in April 2022, there were significant delays in McSweeney’s case being correctly allocated to a probation officer in the community. This impacted on the time available to update his risk assessment and plan effectively for his release on 17 June 2022. 

Following his release, and successive probation appointments being missed, the Probation Service failed to take prompt action in respect of recalling him to custody. Once that decision was made there were also delays in signing the paperwork to initiate the recall. Had this been undertaken sooner, opportunities for the police to locate and arrest Jordan McSweeney would have been maximised. 

The practice deficits in this case are set against a backdrop of excessive workloads and challenges in respect of staffing vacancies in the London region. I have commented on this in recent local probation inspections and the recommendations made in this report correspond to many of our findings in these. This is far from the first time we have made recommendations relating to the need to improve the assessment and management of the risks of serious harm to the public posed by some people on probation. The need for us to repeat them yet again raises questions as to whether HMPPS is learning the lessons of past mistakes. It is vital that they do so in the future.

Justin Russell 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation 

2. Background to the review 

On 26 June 2022, Ms Zara Aleena had been out socialising with a friend and was walking home in the early hours of Sunday morning in Ilford, Essex, when she was physically attacked and sexually assaulted. CCTV footage showed a white male, identified to be Jordan McSweeney (JM) following Ms Aleena and attacking her from behind. The victim suffered multiple injuries, including serious injuries to her head. She sadly passed away later in hospital. On 14 December 2022, JM was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 38 years. 

At the time the offence was committed, JM was supervised by the Probation Service – London region, having been released from custody on 17 June 2022. He had previously received a 16-month custodial sentence on 13 April 2022 for five counts of possession of an offensive weapon, three offences of criminal damage and one racially aggravated public order offence. All the index offences were committed whilst in custody serving a previous 32-month sentence for burglary. 

JM’s arrest for murder constituted a Serious Further Offence (SFO). SFOs are specific violent and sexual offences committed by people who are, or were very recently, under probation supervision at the time of the offence. They are committed by a small proportion of the probation caseload (fewer than 0.5 per cent) 1 however, while this percentage is small, for the victims and families involved, the impact and consequences are devastating and cannot be underestimated. 

An SFO review is triggered when a person is charged and appears in court for a qualifying offence alleged to have been committed while they were under probation supervision or within 28 working days of the supervision period terminating. These reviews are normally internal management reports conducted by the Probation Service itself but, occasionally, the Secretary of State for Justice asks HM Inspectorate of Probation to review a particular case, or aspects of a case, as he did in this instance on 01 July 2022. 

To inform this independent review, HM Inspectorate of Probation has reviewed the quality of the work undertaken by the Barking, Dagenham, and Havering (BDH) probation delivery unit (PDU), within the London Probation region (see annexe 1 for terms of reference). Current probation practice guidance, policy documents and relevant strategies have also been considered at a local, regional, and national level. Given JM had been released from custody 10 days prior to the SFO, practice and policy was also explored in HMP Belmarsh, by colleagues from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons.

4. Summary of key findings: 

Our Inspectors have found that, overall, there were significant omissions and practice deficits which impacted on the management of this case, outlined in the summary below. 

Risk of serious harm – inaccurate assessments and underestimation of risk 

JM was managed as a “medium risk of serious harm Integrated Offender Management (IOM) acquisitive individual” however his level of risk should have been escalated to “high” in February 2021, based on the range of information available on his past history of violence as well as acquisitive offending. There was information known about risks present in custody, such as possession of weapons, violent and threatening behaviour. In addition, he had carried weapons in the community, as well as the risks posed to known adults. The risk to the public, staff and other prisoners, should have been assessed as high risk of serious harm. The risk of serious harm to known adults should also have been high based on information related to offences against a known female received in 2021, which later resulted in a restraining order being imposed. 

The risk should have been reviewed by the Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) who were responsible for the case at that time. JM’s persistent poor behaviour in custody was seen in isolation and risk management in the community was not given sufficient consideration. The risk of harm posed was not viewed holistically in this case, with the focus being on acquisitive offending, and a thorough assessment of other presenting risk factors was missing. 

The lack of effective information sharing between prisons and probation contributed to an incomplete picture of JM’s risks and potential for violence and disruptive behaviour. The fact he spent a significant proportion of his adult years in custody made it difficult to gather significant information about his circumstances and potential behaviour in the community. This strengthens the need for effective information sharing to ensure all known risk factors, behaviours and intelligence is gathered to produce effective risk management plans to use both whilst in custody and when in the community. 

Had he been correctly assessed as high risk of serious harm – specifically in respect of other prisoners, staff, known adults and the public – the planning for release, licence conditions, reporting instructions, and action taken when he failed to attend on release could have been significantly different and potentially more urgent (for example following his failure to attend initial probation appointments on 17 and 20 June). He may also have been eligible for joint Multi Agency Public Protection (MAPPA) management, and for consideration for an Approved Premises (AP) placement, which would have afforded more monitoring of his risk in the community as well as opportunities for rehabilitation. 

With the correct risk assessment, it is likely that the level of monitoring through the IOM arrangements would have been enhanced, allowing timely responses to non-compliance but more importantly, contributing towards a release plan appropriate to the risk posed. 

A critical omission in the case was the failure to apply sufficient professional curiosity and management oversight to ensure all available information was analysed to assess the risk posed by Jordan McSweeney. This review identifies that a significant amount of information became known regarding his circumstances confirming that he was in a relationship, had a stepchild and deteriorating family dynamics, particularly regarding his mother. While information was recorded, there was little evidence of this being explored in any detail or informing assessments undertaken by agencies. This led to risk factors being assessed in isolation and not building a picture of the overall risk posed.

The inaccurate classification of risk was a key theme in our recent PDU inspections in London. Of the 137 medium risk of serious harm cases that were inspected across six local probation areas, seven per cent were deemed to have had their risk underestimated and should have been rated as high risk of serious harm rather than medium. Whilst this is only a sample, it does demonstrate the urgent need to ensure risk categorisations are accurate.

Case Allocation 

There were issues highlighted with the allocation of JM’s case. Although JM received 16-months in custody, taking into account his time spent on remand, he only had two months left to serve in prison at the point of his sentence and so his case should have been allocated directly to a community practitioner. The processes for allocating cases when a custodial sentence is imposed is confusing and cumbersome, impacting significantly on pre-release planning. Had allocation taken place correctly and earlier, probation staff would have had more opportunity to consider the risks posed by this individual and to amend the risk of serious harm assessment. As outlined above, this would have allowed for the exploration of other release arrangements and restrictive conditions. 

Enforcement decisions and recall process 

JM had a history of non-compliance. However, during his periods on licence, delayed decision-making by probation staff and ineffective management oversight resulted in non-compliance continuing without relevant action being taken. Following his release on 17 June, there were missed opportunities to recall JM following failed appointments and risk factors emerging. Recall should have been initiated following non-attendance on 20 June 2022, but management consultation did not consider recall and efforts made to locate JM were insufficient. 

When the recall was initiated on 22 June, this occurred following an informal discussion and PO1’s manager SPO1 was not fully included in the process. A delay to signing off the recall until 24 June, outside the 24-hour target specified in the related guidance , meant the recall was not timely and ultimately delayed the opportunity for JM to be arrested by police. 

Data indicates that the public protection casework section (PPCS), who process licence revocations in HMPPS, take an average of seven7 hours to issue a licence revocation. National data on recalls also shows that the median time8 between licence revocation and a return to prison custody is three days. Had a recall been initiated following the missed appointment on 20 June, or completed within the specified timescale on 23 June, the time for police to locate and arrest JM would have been maximised. 

Diverse needs 

Throughout the records relating to JM, differing needs are highlighted. At different junctures records stated JM had Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Personality Disorder (PD) and had suffered from depression. He was stated to be medicated at various times for ADHD, but little analysis was undertaken of how this affected his day-to-day cognitive functioning and learning styles, and if there were links with offending behaviour.

5. Recommendations 

Between July and October 2022 HM Inspectorate of Probation inspected six PDUs in the London Region. Barking, Dagenham and Havering PDU was one of those inspected, many of the findings from this independent review mirror those from the London PDU inspections9 . They focus on critical concerns such as the quality of work to assess and manage risk of serious harm, the delivery of interventions, information sharing between agencies, quality assurance processes and management oversight, staff training and development, and resourcing and retention of staff. These recommendations are relevant to the practice observed in the case of JM. It is crucial that the service deals with these broader issues to address the practice deficits, and wider systemic issues identified in this independent review.

Notably, some recommendations in this report mirror what has previously been recommended by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of probation, particularly in the independent review of Joseph McCann . It is therefore imperative that these are actioned urgently given they have been highlighted previously as recommendations. 

This independent review makes a further nine recommendations specific to the case of JM.

HMPPS should: 

1. conduct a thorough, senior led review of the processes its staff use to assess the risks of harm that people on probation may pose to others, to ensure that all staff understand and apply the correct criteria for identifying high risk of serious harm cases and that this then informs robust and appropriate risk management plans and regular reviews. This action should be conducted urgently 

2. implement effective arrangements to ensure all risk of harm assessments, including at pre-sentence stage, are quality assured for accuracy until regular and appropriate management oversight arrangements are established, given the national staffing resource shortage and middle management oversight limitations 

3. develop processes to ensure all known information on past behaviour or current risks in prison or the community is available to probation practitioners and is properly analysed when formulating risk assessments pre and post sentence 

4. create robust processes to record and analyse on probation case files when a person on probation is acquitted of offence(s) and where information remains relevant to inform risk of harm assessment and management 

5. while cases are in custody ensure timely and accurate allocation of each case to probation practitioners in the community for supervision before and after release and a mechanism for checking this process 

6. undertake an urgent review of processes for information and intelligence sharing between prisons and the probation service to be completed by June 2023. (A recommendation from the independent review of McCann, this should be given urgent attention given issues are still apparent). 

7. develop processes to ensure that all recall decisions are signed off and submitted by Senior Probation Officers within the 24-hour target period – with compliance against this target monitored in every Probation Delivery Unit on at least a monthly basis 

8. ensure that data on the time from licence revocation by HMPPS Public Protection Casework Section to an individual being received into prison custody is monitored on a regular basis by HMPPS jointly with the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) and that joint probation and police plans are agreed for maximising performance against this metric 

9. ensure the EPF2 tool is used when determining licence conditions and develop a mechanism for effective management oversight of this process to ensure that all appropriate licence conditions, including GPS tagging, are applied after release 

10. develop a London wide initiative on neurodiversity and invest in trauma informed training for staff.

14. ‘Early Look’ and onward actions 

Following JM’s arrest for murder, an ‘early look’ SFO review was completed by the Probation Service – London region in June 2022 in line with HMPPS expected practice. The purpose of an ‘early look’ is to quickly review the practice in the case and promptly identify, to senior leaders within HMPPS, any practice and training deficits that require immediate attention and to begin appropriate actions, and human resource (HR) processes if assessed as being necessary. Inspectors found the quality of the ‘early look’ to be mostly of a sufficient standard. However, on further exploration, some information contained within it, and therefore subsequent actions, were inaccurate. This related specifically to the following: 

The assessment undertaken at Court as part of the allocation process was inaccurate as it pulled through information from historic assessments that required updating. Whilst PO2 was limited by the fact that he did not have the opportunity to meet with JM, the offence analysis did not relate to the index offences and I would have expected this to have been updated.

Having spoken with PO2 and the line manager, and considered the guidance in place, PO2 was required to undertake an “RSR only” OASys which does not require a full review. The process requires an OASys assessment to be generated solely for this calculation, to determine allocation. There is no expectation of court officers to undertake a review of risk. We found that although the correct process was followed here, the process led to inaccurate information being contained within assessments but in line with guidance, should have been updated by the receiving COM or POM. 

The ‘early look’ also indicated that the inclusion of a licence condition to engage with Catch 22 was not appropriate as their remit was to support people to build emotional resilience. We disagreed with this, as it was clear this would be of benefit to JM. However, we did agree other conditions were omitted which would have been beneficial to risk management, such as the imposition of a curfew/GPS tagging. 

When considering the recall prior to the SFO, the ‘early look’ states SPO1 was included in the discussion on 22 June, however on further investigation we know this did not occur, with them only being informed by PO1 a recall was being completed. Actions relating to management oversight and recall processes which were highlighted in the ‘early look’ have already been progressed. 

Following this, HR investigations procedures were initiated in respect of two staff members. These have now concluded, with no further action taken in either case. 

In respect of other areas which have been highlighted as significant in this review, we discussed work that is underway to address some of the deficits. We were told there are significant changes being made to IOM case management in London, in particular work is underway to improve liaison between prisons and IOM colleagues. With regards to neurodiversity, the Head of Operations for north east London boroughs (HOOP) told us there are aims to embed a trauma-informed approach to practice, and projects are already set up in some areas of London focussing on specific needs particularly in respect of young adults.

Although not eligible for OMiC management, the effectiveness of this process is under review by HM Inspectorate of probation with a number of recommendations to review the process which aim for improvements across the OMiC spectrum .

15. Conclusion 

Inspectors found that overall, there were significant omissions and practice deficits which impacted on the management of this case. 

JM was managed as a “medium risk of serious harm IOM acquisitive individual,” however, his level of risk should have been escalated to high risk of serious harm in February 2021, based on the range of information available had it have been sufficiently analysed and considered.

The risks present when he was recalled, in February 2021, were not sufficiently considered for a potential escalation to high risk of serious harm and management by the then National Probation Service. When a restraining order (RO) was imposed in 2021, the PDU were not sufficiently aware which was another missed opportunity to reassess the risk posed. Furthermore, JM’s persistent poor behaviour in custody was seen in isolation and not given sufficient consideration in terms of his risk management in the community. 

Issues were found with sharing of information between prison and probation and assessments were completed in isolation. This led to agencies managing the individual without thorough consideration of the impact on the risks posed, and how they should be managed, both in a custodial and community setting. 

A lack of professional curiosity coupled with a failure to consider information known about JM holistically, led to inaccurate and insufficient risk assessments. There was a significant amount of information known about JM which should have been analysed and explored more fully.

The delay in JM’s case being allocated to a probation officer meant his case was not formally allocated for two months following sentencing. Positively, PO1 continued to work with JM and did undertake some pre-release planning. However, given the delay in allocation, a pre-release assessment was not completed prior to release. This was a missed opportunity to review all the available information and inform pre-release planning and the risk of serious harm assessment. Tools such as the EPF tool which was developed by the probation service to determine relevant licence conditions was not utilised and therefore not all relevant conditions were included. 

On release, the PDU missed opportunities to recall following failed appointments and evidence of risk factors emerging, such as significant use of alcohol. A recall should have been initiated following the missed appointment on 20 June 2022. However, relevant senior leader consultations did not take place, and insufficient efforts were made to locate JM. When the recall was initiated, this was because of an informal discussion and PO1’s line manager was not included formally in the process. A delay to signing off the recall, 24 hours later than the specified timescale, meant the recall was not timely and ultimately delayed the opportunity for JM to be arrested by police. 

The findings from this review mirror findings from the recent HM Inspectorate of probation inspections of London PDUs, including Barking, Dagenham and Havering (BDH) PDU where the overall quality of work delivered to manage people on probation was insufficient and we rated the PDU as ‘Requires improvement’.

Real Reason for 'Inadequacy'

Following on from yesterday's publication of damning HMI inspection reports on three London PDUs, reaction has understandably been one of shock and horror. Readers will recall increasingly desperate appeals to fill vacancies over the summer, leading eventually to staff being offered cash inducements to temporarily re-locate to London for up to three months at a time. 

We all remember the much-heralded announcement of 1,000 extra trainee probation officer posts, but have failed to materialise due to widespread PQiP dissatisfaction and defection regularly discussed on this blog. Sickness rates, burn-out, morale and early retirements by demoralised but highly experienced staff have all been compounded by 10 years of salary erosion. 

It should come as no great surprise that the culmination of all this can be seen in these shocking reports, but the staff are not to blame, these are the direct results of an institutional structural malaise brought about by successive political interference by those only concerned with popularity rather than professional understanding. The forced merger with HM Prison Service has been an utter disaster that can only make matters even worse. 

With the undeniable prospect of a significant change in political direction some time within the next two years, we simply must make the case for probation to return to being a distinct discipline able to function independently of civil service command and control. There is evidence of growing support for this across many stakeholders within the criminal justice sphere and is surely the only way a strong case can be made to divert some of the resources currently ear-marked for prison expansion? 

Effective alternatives to imprisonment can only come about with a fully functioning Probation Service and increasingly it's becoming self-evident that is not going to be possible whilst the service is slowly but effectively strangled by civil service command and control as part of HMPPS. Where is the Howard League, Clinks, Nacro, Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, academia, et al on this? We need a campaign and we need it now.  

Meanwhile, here are highlights from the other two London HMI reports:-         

Lambeth

Foreword

This was the first Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspection of services within Lambeth since the unification of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC) and National Probation Service (NPS) in June 2021. The overall quality of work delivered to manage people on probation was poor across all four of our standards for casework. Although there were some positives demonstrated in the way this service was organised and led, there was insufficient attention paid to the quality of case management, which should be at the heart of what probation services deliver. As a result of this, the PDU is rated “Inadequate”. 

A common theme emerging in the PDUs we have inspected to date is that staffing levels were insufficient. At the point of inspection, Lambeth PDU had an overall vacancy rate of 27 per cent across probation practitioner and middle manager grades. Staff understandably did not feel their workloads were manageable, and many reflected they were not satisfied in their work, acknowledging that there was not enough focus on quality of supervision within the PDU. 

We were impressed by the governance and accountability framework in place, led by the head of the PDU, which had driven improvements against key performance indicators. But performance measures alone did little to improve the quality of work being undertaken. We were concerned to see examples of unsatisfactory assessments being countersigned by managers in order to achieve a performance target date for completion, while they openly acknowledged gaps in the quality of the work. This is unacceptable. There was an overall lack of quality assurance in all cases. This is also a regional issue due to inadequate resourcing within regional performance and quality teams, which have been raided to make good shortages in frontline staff resources. The issues of resourcing, while needing regional attention, also require intervention from national senior leaders. 

There were positive strategic partnerships across the borough of Lambeth, and this was reflected in the range of services available. These were, however, not then fully utilised by probation practitioners to manage risk of harm or support individuals towards desistance in the cases we inspected. People on probation did not feel involved or engaged in their sentence, or with the Probation Service as a whole. This was reflected in poor engagement and outcome scores across all casework quality standards.

Undoubtedly, both staff and managers will be disappointed with the outcome of this inspection. Whilst we are hopeful that the management structures in place will be able to drive improvements, this will only be achieved when there is a shift to focusing on the quality of supervision, with sufficient staffing in place to facilitate effective delivery. 

Justin Russell 

Chief Inspector of Probation

Ealing and Hillingdon

Foreword 

This was the first Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspection of probation services within Ealing and Hillingdon since the unification of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and National Probation Services (NPS) in June 2021. The overall quality of work delivered to manage people on probation was insufficient across all five of our standards for casework, with the PDU being rated as ‘Inadequate’. 

Although staff were positive about the support received from managers and senior leaders, these efforts were not translating into sufficient work being delivered with people on probation and to keep communities safe. 

In common with every PDU we have inspected to date, staffing levels were insufficient. The overall vacancy rate at the point of the inspection announcement was 21 per cent. Vacancy rates within administrative grades and Probation Services Officers (PSOs) were much worse and particularly acute, and this position is clearly unsustainable. The PSO vacancy rate at the time of inspection was 41 per cent. These critical gaps are significantly impacting not only the quality of work, but also the morale of staff within the PDU which could, if left unchecked, lead to even more staff leaving. 

As with other recent inspections we were particularly concerned about the poor quality of work to assess and manage the risks that people on probation may present to the wider community. Only 22 per cent of cases we inspected were sufficient in terms of the services delivered to effectively support the safety of other people and assessments around risk of harm were not much better. A national approach is needed to improve this critical aspect of probation practice. 

Resourcing challenges were also apparent to people on probation in this PDU. Over half of those interviewed on our behalf by User Voice said that there were no positives to report about their experience of probation services in Ealing and Hillingdon. This needs to improve. While there remains much work still to be done and improvements are needed, the leaders of this PDU recognise they are on a journey of recovery from the impacts of both the Covid-19 pandemic and the unification of NPS and CRC services in London in the summer of 2021. 

While Ealing and Hillingdon PDU is rated as ‘Inadequate’ overall, there is evidence that the foundations are starting to form to support the required improvement. This will only be possible however, if the appropriate regional and national support is in place to address staffing and other local needs. 

Justin Russell 

Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Email from a reader:-

"Essentially firefighting endless managerial incompetence, poorly resourced offices, lack of organisational integrity, heavy-handed and tone deaf approaches and reliance on the civil service code of omerta to stifle any dissenting voices expressing long-standing concerns on staffing resources, collapse in morale, egregious collusive management-condoned practices to shore up near-empty PDU's due to sickness, recruitment and retention issues and the endless flow of organisational diktats from above on targets, bloated OASys completion demands etc. 

The concerns on impact on judicial confidence was especially significant with union reps ensuring that these concerns reached the Inspectorate and were included in the final report. Some graphic examples, which were aired in open court, included a vulnerable female client who had not been supervised for over 10 months, an embargo on post sentence supervision -that is no supervision! and over-reliance on sessional PSR writers who were out of practice and therefore not conversant with new legislation. 

With 'piles of unallocated cases' - one PDU was so bereft of staff that there were serious concerns that a raft of SFO's was likely to result, given the demography of the demanding and violence-convicted clients, many having to travel further distances due to the closure (commercial reasons?) of the main Central London PDU - and were not being supervised. But the fact that this report is now out in all its gory detail should prompt some urgent remedial action. Noticeably absent will be any senior management performance reviews/resignations as the duty of care to staff and service users and the wider community is almost completely abrogated.

Other London PDU's will be facing similar forensic Inspectoral scrutiny in coming months and this should be a tipping point for overhaul of LP with the dead hand of the civil service carapace consigned to the dustbin! If the newly appointed Justice Secretary had not so many other explosive issues on his hands this would be seen as a spectacular organisational scandal in the largest Probation Service which covers Westminster/Parliament! And throws into sharp relief what currently has to be the hollow probation strapline mantra of assess, protect and change!"

Inspection Scores Zero!

With 'reunification' yet to bed in properly and HMPPS HQ busy 'navel gazing' and considering yet more organisational changes at the top, HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell is clearly getting exasperated with the state of things on the front line. 

We all know there's a crisis on pretty much every level within the Service, but everyone at the top seems to be in complete denial with fingers in ears and singing 'la la la la la la'. Things could get a whole lot worse as well with a new round of spending cuts on the way. Press release issued today:- 

Inspectorate calls for urgent action as trio of London probation services rated ‘Inadequate’

Probation Services, also known as Probation Delivery Units (PDUs*), in three areas of London have each been rated ‘Inadequate’ following inspections by HM Inspectorate of Probation.

Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster PDU, Lambeth PDU and Ealing and Hillingdon PDU each received the lowest rating possible (‘Inadequate’) – an outcome which has led the Inspectorate to call on the Probation Service, at a national level, to take urgent action to support these services.

One of the services – Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster PDU received zero out of a total of 27 inspection points. Both Lambeth PDU and Ealing and Hillingdon PDU each scored just three points.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “These are without doubt some of the poorest probation inspection outcomes we have seen. For a probation delivery unit not to score a single inspection point is something I did not expect, or ever want, to see. But many of the failings are beyond these individual services to fix – the Probation Service, at a national level, must provide urgent assistance.

“These three London probation services have chronic staff shortages, some with less than 50 per cent of the probation practitioners they need, often exacerbated by high rates of sickness too. In one area we found hundreds of cases without a named probation practitioner and therefore not being properly supervised – some of these cases involved individuals who had committed very serious offences.

“Furthermore, even where people on probation did have an allocated officer, we found poor management of cases, with a rating of ‘Inadequate’ for all five of our case quality standards in all three services, with particularly worrying weaknesses around the management of risks of harm to the public. This cannot be allowed to continue. Staff need the necessary resources and clear direction to allow them to supervise individuals safely. It is critical that appropriate services and interventions are delivered to address offending and manage harm.

“Sadly, this is not an issue isolated to London. Of the twelve probation services we have inspected from across England Wales, since reunification, nine have now been rated
‘Inadequate’, with the remaining three services rated as ‘Requires improvement’. This is a stark picture of the position probation services find themselves in. They need strong leadership, sustained resourcing and recruitment and a relentless focus on improving the quality of supervision and risk management if they are to recover.

“I acknowledge the commitment of staff and managers in London to turning things around, despite the challenges they face. We have seen this demonstrated through the urgent HMPPS response to our findings with a commitment to increase staffing levels and review their work in line with our recommendations. I look forward to seeing if this determination, along with regional and national assistance to these local services, can help them to overcome current failures.”

--oo00oo--

Report can be found here:-

Foreword

This was the first of six Probation Delivery Unit (PDU) inspections in the London region, since the unification of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and the National Probation Services (NPS) in June 2021. Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea, and Westminster (HFKCW) PDU faces huge challenges, many of which predate the transition to the new probation service, and the Covid-19 pandemic, and have been present for some time.

Such were the scale of our concerns that we raised an ‘organisational alert’ about this PDU with the leadership of the Probation Service during our inspection fieldwork, requiring urgent action to reduce the risks that we found – the first time this has happened since I became Chief Inspector in June 2019. Given the very poor quality of work uncovered by this inspection we have had no choice but to rate this PDU as ‘Inadequate’.

Across all five of our standards for case work, we rated provision as ‘Inadequate’. Of particular concern though, was the fact that over 900 cases in this area had not been allocated to a named probation practitioner, including Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) cases and those with active safeguarding and domestic abuse concerns. We found insufficient contact taking place with these unallocated cases and ineffective monitoring arrangements to keep the public safe which was of serious concern.

Almost all staff felt their workloads were unmanageable which was not surprising given that HFKCW had an overall vacancy rate of 43 per cent. The strategy implemented to try and manage this was complex. This created a sense of anxiety and confusion among staff who, despite best efforts, were struggling to identify what was a priority, and what was not, at any given time. As well as the high staff vacancy rates, high levels of staff sickness were also contributing to the problem and staff retention is a huge issue, with a third of staff having left this PDU in the 12 months prior to the announcement of this inspection.

Strategically, there are clear delivery plans and improved relationships with key partner agencies. While this is encouraging progress, the impact of these is yet to be seen in effective delivery of services and they are unlikely to have the desired impact until the chronic resourcing issues in this PDU are addressed. In many of the cases we assessed there was no meaningful intervention work being undertaken in supervision. Only 20 per cent of people on probation we surveyed said they had access to the services they need via probation.

Whilst the current PDU leaders have made efforts to rectify the dire situation they find themselves in, the reality is that they are unable to do so by themselves and require significant and enhanced support and oversight from national senior leadership teams if they are to make any real progress. Staff and managers across HFKCW will be extremely disappointed with the outcome of this inspection, but we would be doing them a disservice if we did not report openly and honestly about the severity of the situation they are working in.

Justin Russell
Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

Recommendations

 As a result of our inspection findings, we have made a number of recommendations that we believe, if implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of probation services.

HFKCW should: 

1. improve the quality of work to assess, plan for, manage and review risk of harm 

2. ensure that the interventions necessary to improve desistance and reduce reoffending and risk of harm are provided in all cases 

3. improve the arrangements for information sharing to ensure that pre-sentence domestic abuse and safeguarding enquiries are completed and utilised to inform assessment, planning and risk management 

4. improve the effectiveness of quality assurance and management oversight of all casework 

5. ensure staff have the relevant training to use risk and safeguarding information, obtained from key stakeholders, to appropriately inform risk assessment and sentence plans for people on probation 

6. ensure staff with responsibility for case management oversight have the skills, knowledge and time to undertake the work effectively 

7. engage with people on probation to inform service delivery 

8. complete all actions identified as part of the organisational alert. 

London region should: 

9. complete all actions identified in the organisational alert 

10. ensure priorities are clearly communicated and understood by probation practitioners and middle managers 

11. ensure HFKCW has sufficient staffing resource in place 

12. ensure that management information in relation to Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) referrals is available for PDU managers and analysed effectively to increase the use of available services. 

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service should: 

13. consider incentives to improve recruitment and retention of staff 

14. improve the support provision to sites assessed as red under the Prioritising Probation Framework (PPF)

Guest Blog 87

Probation as Abuser

I am a senior probation officer and have been in the service for over fifteen years. Of course, I'd be happy to own the things I'm about to say, I believe them and I can evidence them, but I'd never get permission to publish these views and if I identified myself without permission, I'd be in breach of the civil service code and subject to disciplinary action. 

It's worth pointing out that a dedicated set of public sector workers have been silenced and reduced to anonymous blogging. This itself, is the first act of institutional abuse I'd like to mention. It's hardly the behaviour of a confident organisation that's not afraid of healthy debate, more the type of censorship that might be seen in a repressive regime. 

Some time ago senior management were pushing an agenda of "professionalisation", but that's a hard circle to square with a staff group that is unable to publicly comment on their work. Truly probation staff are the "hidden heroes", hidden in plain sight and forbidden to speak.

With a few years in the job I've seen some things. From TPOs to PQiPs, from new labour to coalition, from Grayling to Gove, from NPS Mk1 to NPS Mk2, I've watched and lived it all like many who read this blog. It's entirely subjective of course but I've never seen the service in such a bad state. The staff shortages, the chaos, the weariness of colleagues is at breaking point. I know of offices with huge lists of entirely unallocated cases. A panicky email has been sent out asking for staff who might be willing to go and live in a hotel to prop up London probation. 

Why any PDU head in a remote area would approve the loss of a member of their own staff to prop up the capital is beyond me. While London is clearly in utter crisis other PDUs are teetering on the brink. Weary SPOs tell me they've been "in red" on the prioritisation matrix for months. What's the cause? Well far from being the great panacea that was promised, reunification has not brought relief to the system. 

At times of change, people change and many have voted for the door. Helped perhaps by Brexit labour shortages, they've left for the many, many jobs that now look much more attractive both financially and emotionally. Lidl pay £12 per hour and there's no domestic abuse or sex offending, well not much. The remaining staff are increasingly shell shocked and off sick. Absence rates are through the roof further tipping the service into crisis. 

Any staff that have the ability or the wherewithal are applying for jobs elsewhere in the business to get away from sentence management. That said, those PDU heads are wise to this and are simply refusing to release staff when they get new jobs! What's the answer? An army of PQiPS. Hundreds of them, in some offices I'm told there are more PQiPS than POs. This is great news, but who will train them? The stressed-out experienced staff are too busy managing the dangerous cases, there's a shortage of PTA's. 

It's like Putin's great mobilisation, an army of conscripts with no officers to train them and no ability to fight. PQiPs are leaving (deserting?) before they even qualify. They look at their weary miserable colleagues, they look at the lack of support and the huge responsibility, they look at the SPO apologetically asking them to take another high-risk case with remote oversight and it's not painting an attractive picture of their future.

Of course, the senior management response to a service in crisis is to double down. Having submitted the probation service to repeated catastrophic re-organisations the time is clearly right for further ill-conceived tinkering. Despite many failed attempts to get prisons and probation to work seamlessly (end to end offender management anyone?) they're going to have another go. We will become "One HMPPS". It's a sick joke. It's almost as if change is the only thing they can do, despite little evidence of benefit and considerable proof of harm.

Change in probation has been the one constant in my time and the pace has accelerated. The expectation that staff will absorb more change is, in my view, abusive. Is it a coincidence that the service has a largely female workforce? Certainly, probation pay has been neglected conspicuously over the years. The message for some years now has been absorb more work, absorb more change and get paid less. 

The only counterweight they have to this is tin pot reward and recognition schemes doling out consumerist shopping vouchers or "wellbeing" programmes that have to be set up and run by staff themselves. Messages like "take five to connect with colleagues" circulate alongside emails to allocate more cases. Numbers cease to make sense with 120% being the new 100% on the workload management tool. 

It's abusive nonsense and don't ever be fooled, they don't care. I'm not saying they're evil, I'm not saying they're not kind to dogs and small children, but if you think they care about frontline staff other than as bare resource to be burned up and exploited then I think you're a bit misguided to put it politely. They know what would make things better, they know that lower workloads, less change, higher pay would improve morale and wellbeing (and probably outcomes for probationers) but ask yourself, have they ever done any of those things in the last ten years? No, they haven't, and no amount of moaning on the people's survey will ever shift that dial so don't even bother.

Lets put our senior management through the lens of OASys. What would be the crime? Hard to look past some form of domestic abuse. Repeatedly punching the face of someone you claim to love. Like many an abuser you've controlled the ability of your victim to interact with the outside world, controlling their freedom of speech. 

The constant change, the threats about performance, interspersed with daft awards and occasional cake (please bake your own), what is this but a form of gas lighting, leaving staff constantly dazed and confused. The restriction of finances, both resourcing and salary wise. The constant accrual of new victims, looking at you PQiPs. It all adds up. But you know what's the worst? The absolute worst is taking advantage of someone's love, someone's passion, someone's vocation and betraying that so they let you treat them so badly. That's proper abuse that is.

There's a new Lidl opening up the road. Might have a look.

Anon

Command and Control

Thanks go to the colleague for sharing this cracker:-

Sent: 16 March 2022

To: Xxxxxxxx PDU - Staff

Subject: Professionalism, responsivity and health and safety

Dear all,

I’m going to start this email by stating explicitly that the below observations do not relate to all staff. I recognise that you are all working in challenging times, doing the very best you can. However, I think it is important to revisit the expectation that all of us conduct ourselves with the utmost professional curtesy showing due respect for our colleagues and People on Probation. There have been a number of issues coming to the fore of late which can’t continue to go unchecked.

Responsivity

I can totally sympathise with the volume of email traffic that we all get - me personally at least 150 – 200 emails a day. Many of these however are escalation emails to me, where colleagues from with London and further afield are complaining about a lack of response from some of you. I get to see the chain of chaser emails which go ignored or unanswered and this is totally unacceptable. We are all incredibly busy and I recognise that, but even a holding email, advising that you will get to the matter as soon as possible is better than radio silence. This is incredibly frustrating to experience, think about how this makes you feel when you are on the receiving end of it.

Likewise, answering telephone calls. I have seen some staff blatantly ignore reception telephone calls or those form the service centre. What happens next is myself and SPOs then get copied in to emails to resolve queries and issues, only to see you at your desk seemingly able to have facilitated that call in the first place. Frankly, it’s rude, shows a lack of respect for our reception staff, leaves PoPs annoyed and causes unnecessary aggravation. There is a knock on effect when this happens and we need to be considerate of that fact.

PoPs are also left waiting in reception for far to long it causes congestion and leads to people getting irate. If your PoP is early then let reception know that you will come out and see them at the allotted time.

Health and Safety

Staff are still failing to book interview rooms, take the right panic alarm for the right room and if I catch the person who is deliberately unplugging the telephones in the interview rooms, there will be a consequence!! These rules are not meant to be a hinderance - it if for your health and safety. We need to be able to ensure the right response is provided if you need it. Reception staff can’t check to see if you are Ok if the phone is unplugged and if you need assistance in Interview room 3, but the panic alarm for interview room 5 is going off then any meaningful response is delayed. Taking the wrong panic alarm and using the wrong interview room has a knock on effect. This is an impassioned plea for you to all take this more seriously from now on. Health and Safety is a collective responsibility.

Professionalism

This goes without saying for the majority of you, but a reminder that we are a team that need to stick together and look out for each other. We all need to take leave for rest and recouperation and should expect colleagues to cover us as much as we should cover them. Same for unexpected absences, everyone needs to chip in, it should not fall to a select few or those who repeatedly help out whilst others chose to be unhelpful. I expect that cases are in a well-managed state with next appointments and a clear steer in Delius about what work has/is being done with them, especially when cover needs to be provided at short notice.

I expect everyone to take notice of the above. I have asked for examples of where this is not happening and this will be addressed directly with the individuals concerned as it is behaviour that will no longer be tolerated. It is simply unfair!

I appreciate that the tone of the email is curt, but I make no apologies for wanting to foster a work environment where all staff behave professionally and in line with our civil service values.

Kind regards,

Xxxxxxx

Head of Service

PDU Xxxxxxx

London Probation Service