Showing posts with label Programmes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Programmes. Show all posts

Tuesday, 9 July 2024

A Very Bad Idea

Regular readers will recall that one unfortunate casualty of Rishi Sunak having a hissy fit and calling a very unexpected general election was the last minute cancellation of a BBC Newsnight investigation into the mess HMPPS was making of sex offender programmes.

Sadly, but very conveniently for HMPPS, this film will never see the light of day due to the BBC culling all the investigative journalists from Newsnight and reducing the programme to 30 rather than 45 minutes. Fortunately, I see the subject gets a thorough airing in this piece published yesterday by ByLine Times:-

Ministry of Justice Downgrading of Sex Offender Rehabilitation Will Have ‘Catastrophic Effect’ on Public Safety, Union Warns

The salaries of specialist probation officers who manage sex offenders are being cut – and 77% say they plan to leave the job.

New plans to cut the salaries of specialist probation officers who manage the risk of sex offenders could have a “catastrophic” effect on public safety, unions warn.

Sex offenders in England and Wales are often required to take part in Horizon, a programme designed to reduce their risk of reoffending. Around 1 in 10 sex offenders go on to commit a similar crime.

The programme is facilitated by specialised officers, many of whom have decades of experience working with sex offenders, but the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has decided the role will drop from band 4 to band 3 for new recruits from 1 August 2024, which will result in a pay cut of up to £10,000.

Facilitators will no longer be required to be qualified probation officers, which comes with two years’ training, including risk management and risk assessment.

Around 93% of Horizon facilitators think the public will be at increased risk following these changes, according to an internal survey of members of the union Napo seen by Byline Times.

These changes are like “putting the teaching assistants in charge of the school,” says Laura, a specialist probation officer with experience facilitating and managing these programmes. Laura, (not her real name) added that it takes a lot of experience to be able to idenitfy the signs that someone may reoffend.

“People with 10 to 20 years’ experience are really good at picking up on the signs when someone is becoming risky,” the specialist probation officer says. “And we have a degree-level qualification in managing risk."

“My concern is that we’ll lose these experienced staff who are good at identifying risk, and I can think of a number of situations where staff running these programmes have identified risk that has led to us finding out that men have been having contact with children they shouldn’t have been, which has led to them being recalled to prison.”

Facilitators who are currently at band 4 will have their pay frozen for three years, then it will drop to band 3, and their job roles will encompass a broader range of programmes.

The decision has caused a “serious loss of trust” among facilitators, says Max (not his real name), a probation officer with over a decade’s experience of facilitating sex offender programmes. “A lot of people around me, with a lot of experience, are thinking about leaving the service,” he says.

According to NAPO’s survey, 77% of specialist probation officers say they will leave their team. This will leave inexperienced staff to do the work, says Napo’s Tania Bassett. 

“Inexperienced staff will need to be trained in Horizon, which will take time, and in some cases there is no training provision,” she told Byline Times. 
"As a result, we expect large parts of the country to be left unable to deliver any sex offender work for quite a few months."

“Existing groups are likely to be withdrawn as there won’t be any staff left to complete them. Evidence shows that, where a programme is only partially completed, risk of offenders increases.”

Probation officers that manage people on probation are supported by divisional sex offender units, which consist of specialist probation staff that deliver Horizon. They’re trained to conduct thorough risk assessments and sentence management plans for sex offenders, and provide tailored interventions.

“A lot of probation officers with caseloads lack the confidence of how to work with people with sexual convictions, and look to us for advice,” says Max. 

The new plans will eliminate this oversight across the country, says Rebecca (not her real name), a senior probation officer, who declined to provide her name. “There will be a two-tier workforce that will be watered down over time because experienced staff have left and continue to do so. They don’t want to go back into the field doing case management and overseeing an extremely high caseload, which holds a significant level of accountability. We’re walking into a furnace.”

This move could have a “catastrophic” effect on public safety, says Unison, one of the UK’s largest trade unions.

“With the probation service suffering from an acute workload and staffing crisis, it’s all the more important to hold on to experienced employees to supervise complex cases effectively,” says Ben Priestley, the union’s national officer for police and probation. 
"Doing away with specialist units with expertise in dealing with sex offenders will lead to a significant loss of skilled staff with the necessary experience. Communities will be left without the protection they deserve and require."

The agenda around punishing sex offenders seems to focus on increasing sentences, rather than protecting those at risk of being targeted by sex offenders, says Harriet Wistrich, founder and director of the Centre for Women’s Justice.

Wistrich, a solicitor who acted for some of the victims of John Worboys, known as the ‘black cab rapist’, told Byline Times: “Unless you lock everyone up forever, people will come up of prison, usually on license, and this is a critical time. If they’re regarded low enough in risk, that risk should be very carefully monitored by probation, which requires particular skills and experience.

“Sex offending is a specific type offending. It’s quite different from a lot of other offending because it seems many sex offenders are quite able to present themselves in ways that won’t necessarily make them appear to be a risk to those who aren’t very skilled at identifying and understanding that risk and manipulation,” she says.

There are also plans to replace Horizon, which is designed specifically for those with sexual convictions, with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ course, Next Generation of Accredited Programmes.

Simon (not his real name) completed Horizon while on probation after serving time for a sexual offence and credits it with changing his life. “Getting caught helped me see there were things I needed to address to understand why I did what I did, and I’m a better person now,” he says. “Horizon provides an understanding that we’re all built differently, and it takes a trigger to send you over the edge.”

Simon praises the facilitators, saying they were “excellent” and know how to “treat people”. “If one of us stepped out of line, they were soon told,” he told Byline Times. “You could see their experience in how they spoke to you. Having that experience was vital.”

The move should be a concern to the public, says George Georgiou, GMB’s national officer.

“The work undertaken with people who have committed sexual offences is – and has been for decades – specialised,” he says. “The way people offend and the theories and approaches to addressing this behaviour varies by offence type. “Evidence shows the effective treatment of people who have committed offences of a sexual nature does reduce the risk of their reoffending. GMB is concerned removing specialist workers leaves the public at risk of increased reoffending.”

Daniel, (not his real name) was sexually abused by a teacher when he was 13.

The 55-year-old says he’s struggled with feelings of guilt for not going to the police about his abuser, who went on to sexually abuse other children. “It’s so vital that the right infrastructure is in place to support and rehabilitate people so they don’t reoffend,” he says.

A Probation Service spokesperson told Byline Times that sex offenders are “supervised by qualified probation officers and the Horizon behaviour change programme they undertake will continue to be delivered by appropriately trained staff. These changes will ensure these programmes are delivered consistently across the country to reduce the risk of reoffending.”

Jessica Bradley

Monday, 8 July 2024

Guest Blog 99

Future victims and a denial of cost cutting

Programmes is in a mess. Absolute turmoil, staff in meltdown, off sick or leaving in their droves nationally. 
Yet when we talk to our OM colleagues we are either met with a shrug, or indifference. Well, good luck, as shit rolls downwards.

Due to a job evaluation that has taken over two years the highly qualified band 4 officers who deliver sex offender programmes are being ‘re-banded’ to Band 3. Many have decades of experience with this cohort, imparting knowledge and risk assessments to OM colleagues and the courts.

Equally highly qualified Band 3 PSOs (many of whom are educated to Masters level) are taking on the sex offender group work. This is not the job they signed up for, and numerous have the attitude of ‘why should we, for ten grand less?’ Considering the Band 3 has such a low starting salary its now possible to be paid more in an admin level job in local authorities and councils. Now we value admin colleagues but lets face it the stress of dealing with DV perpetrators or those who offend sexually is markedly lower in admin than a PSO in programmes.

Recent VLO banding to Band 4 was of course welcome, but this is even more a kick in the teeth to PSO’s in Programmes who will often spend in excess of over 70 hours face to face with people on probation (BBR totals around 70 hours face to face work). The only PSOs who deal face to face with High Risk sexual and domestically violent offenders in the service are now wondering should they jump ship into Band 4 VLO positions, or head into a Domestic Abuse Safety Officer (DASO) role? But, hang on – they can’t because all band 4 roles are ringfenced for the Band 4 programmes officers being transferred in. Band 3 PSOs are facing a future as Intervention Facilitators, unable to access any other PSO roles in courts, or sentence mangers as they will be second class employees. They will be seen as external candidates for the PQiP route, closing every door internally. All TM roles are being allocated to the Band 4 probation officers being thrown out of the sex offender programmes. Therefore the TM training pathway and interview process for BBR and TSP is being watered down, resulting in the TM’s of the future never having delivered these programmes before telling those highly experienced BBR facilitators how to do their job.

The JES appeal is being appealed by NAPO as it was widely inaccurate and yet radio silence from the Unions to the wider probation service.

Many suspect the handling of this process is reminiscent of a nicely packaged up Interventions service heading for the private sector. Sold off twice – charming. Wonder how the public would react if they knew that highly specialist teams dealing with this cohort are being disbanded ready for another Grayling moment?

In the meantime in many regions of England and Wales there are no programmes being run for sex offenders, Band 3 teams cut in half, hampered in their attempts to offer domestic violence rehabilitation work, long waiting lists building up. What a shambles, again.

Anon

Sunday, 28 May 2023

Latest From Napo 237

Here we have selected highlights from the Napo mailout to members on Friday:-  

Programmes and interventions

Many of our members working in Programmes and Interventions will have taken the opportunity to join one of the regular consultative meetings organised by Carole Doherty (National Vice-Chair) and Tania Bassett (National Official) over recent months. Here we have covered the position relating to the plans for the Target Operating Model and delivery of the ‘Next Generation.

In addition to the comprehensive updates that have been made available at these events, your National Executive Committee (NEC) members and elected National Officer Group, receive comprehensive reports of progress on our engagement with senior management. In addition we have also issued regular mail outs to our members, but if you know of a colleague who has not received these please ask them to contact: membership@napo.org.uk to confirm their preferred e-mail address, or to notify us of any change in their personal details.

Background to the current position

As you would expect, the Probation Unions (Napo, UNISON and GMB) take every opportunity to regularly relay the anger and frustration that has been made clear by our respective members directly to senior management. This is via a series of scheduled meetings with the Reducing Reoffending Directorate, but also during our fortnightly engagement with the Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards or HMPPS Executive Directors Amy Rees and Phil Copple.

This update brings you up to speed with the latest position in what has undoubtedly become a difficult and protracted issue; one that is causing massive uncertainty to the workforce, but which also has serious implications for public protection if the plans come to fruition.

Some months ago, Napo were alerted to a number of high-level documents which the employer had mistakenly published on the Intranet. These revealed plans to decimate the Divisional Sex Offender Units and downgrade the work of Facilitators delivering Programmes to Band 3.

Following the understandable level of anger and mistrust that this generated across all three unions, the consultation was paused. Napo, alongside Unison and GMB made it clear that there had been a complete breakdown in trust with the employer and their intentions, and we demanded written assurances before any further discussions could be held. This process took about 2 months with the unions responding to the employer’s submissions during this time. As a result of this, the consultation process has changed and there has also been a change on the employer’s side in who attends these talks.

Our current engagement strategy

Essentially, the unions have two choices before us. One is canvassing members for hard hitting industrial action over a prolonged period to try and shock the Government into changing these plans, but feedback from members so far indicates that we are not yet at this stage.

The second, is to maintain our engagement for as long as we can before entering a National Dispute under the Probation Joint National Council (JNC).

We are now at the stage where we are close to concluding formal consultation over the stated plans on which we regularly brief our political contacts. Once consultation is concluded we will enter into formal negotiations as the proposed changes will clearly impact on terms and conditions if they are enacted.

In addition, Napo has provided regular briefings to the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, and the General Secretary has personally briefed Sir Bob Neil, the Chair of the Justice Select Committee on these seriously dangerous proposals. The Probation Unions will also be invited to give formal evidence to the Justice Committee over the summer, and as you would expect, this will cover a range of issues including the stated direction of travel on Programmes and Interventions which Carole and Tania continue to challenge on a daily basis. As well as this work, we are in regular contact with Labour’s Front Bench Team as they start to build their criminal justice policies for their general election manifesto. If Labour are elected to government, we already know that they will ditch these proposals.

Understandably, some members are asking why we continue to engage on these proposals, but the view of the Officer Group is that it would be a mistake to withdraw from the talks. Firstly, it would allow senior management a clear playing field when we have on numerous occasions, been able to prevent communications being issued or events taking place. Additionally, it would enable management to push through the Job Evaluation exercise on the role of Band 3 and 4 practitioners without our involvement. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

While we maintain pressure on management and make plans to step up our campaigning activities, we also have an obligation to try and find a negotiated solution to the impasse that we are facing, and Napo would be failing its members if it did not explore every possible avenue here.

The next steps

There is no room for doubt that we are in the midst of an attritional campaign, to which there are no easy solutions; but we hope that the foregoing will demonstrate that we are doing all we can in the absence of members willingness (at this moment), to support an industrial strategy. However, the consultation has made some progress and we have already achieved a number of concessions from the employer as a result of our strong position. We will continue to keep members up to date via regular briefings and mail outs to ensure that you remain clear about our position and our approach to future engagement, and that we will make sure that our members voices, views and concerns are clearly heard.

--oo00oo--

Further pause on final VLO Job Description

Members will be aware that the Victim Liaison Officer role job description is currently undergoing consultation and evaluation review as a result of changes made during E3 and changes in legislation and role requirements.

Tania Bassett National Official, Carole Doherty National Vice Chair and a number of VLO staff have met several times to discuss concerns about the JD and JDQ and agree proposed changes.

The current consultation period is due to end on 26th May. However, to allow time to revise the JD and JDQ, as a result of Trade Union and staff feedback, the consultation will be paused. Once the documentation has been amended, the consultation period will recommence for a further 28 days consultation with a provisional start date for 16th June.

Whilst the evaluation process for the VLO JD has been ongoing for a significant length of time and this has had an impact on members, it is important to take the time now to amend the documentation and engage in further consultation to ensure the process is thorough and fair. We believe that we have made really good progress and the employers side has listened to trade unions and VLO members and the JD and JDQ which be much improved as a result of extending this process by another month.

Saturday, 22 April 2023

Latest From Napo 235

Here we have selected highlights from yesterday's Napo mailout to members:- 

Unions to appeal outcome of Enforcement Officer (Trials) Job Evaluation

The job evaluation process for the above role has been fraught with difficulty and delay over a number of years where it has not been possible to reach agreement with the employer as to the appropriate pay band for this work.

Disappointingly, a recent job evaluation exercise has determined that the role has been scored within the range for Band 3. This is despite the fact that in many areas of the service contested breaches were previously undertaken at Band 4. As you would expect, the trade unions are seriously unhappy with the outcome for a number of reasons. These will be included in a formal appeal under the agreed Probation Joint Negotiating Council procedures where we will be using the feedback received from our members and also referencing the considerable anger that has been relayed to us as we seek to overturn this retrograde decision. You can read the full submission that was made by Napo here.

Meanwhile, the unions initial advice to members asked to engage in breach work is that you insist on receiving the appropriate training before undertaking this work and that you make that clear in writing to your line manager.

Further news will follow on this issue as soon as it becomes available.

Details of Proposed Change: 

As a result of a commitment to re-review the Enforcement Officer (Trials) Job Description, a new Job Evaluation Scheme (JES) process was commenced in early 2022. Four focus groups were held with Enforcement Officers, with support from Enforcement Managers, and Union Representatives to update the Job Description Questionnaire (JDQ) prepared during the equivalent E3 process. Although the process was lengthy, all involved approached the work positively and constructively. The JDQ and JD were shared with Enforcement Officers and the final versions are reflective of feedback received from staff. 

We recognise that there is currently mixed practice across the country in the prosecution of contested breaches. This revised Job Description captures our ambition for wider implementation of an existing national strategy to pursue the in-house delivery of contested breach Trials in all Magistrates Courts, with the exception of those cases deemed to be ‘highly complex and contentious’. The definition of complex cases is being developed by the National Enforcement Group and will be subject to staff and union consultation in January and February 2023. 

The in-house prosecution of the majority of cases will realise some cost savings as it will reduce the requirement to commission external counsel. The strategy will also support a better quality of prosecution, which will be delivered by practitioners with expertise in the enforcement of community disposals and sound understanding of the of the nuances of sentence delivery. 

This will result in a better quality service to the judiciary in all breach cases, building our reputation with our in-Court stakeholders. In practice, we should see breach proceedings resolved more quickly on average (and in line with the desired disposal), avoiding unnecessary adjournments for Trial. In-house responsibility for Trial prosecution will create natural accountability in the overall enforcement process, promoting appropriate negotiation with the Defence to arrive at an acceptable plea and thus avoiding unnecessary Trials. Where the specific facts of a case make a Trial unavoidable, staff will have the knowledge and experience of contested breach work to inform case management discussions with the Defence and the Court to reduce the number of live Witnesses, saving time on disclosure and Witness attendance at Court, allowing the Trial to be heard as soon as possible after the denial. 

To support this strategy, in March 2022, the first contested breach training sessions were delivered following work to create the package by the Design Faculty, Learning Services and the National Enforcement Group in 2021. Target learners for this package are PSOs and those staff subject to the Enforcement Officer (Trials) JD. This strategy relies on individual regions being responsible for ensuring appropriate roll out of this learning to their staff. Work is ongoing to ensure this product delivers the best value and impact for learners. 

We would welcome comments from Trade Union partners before we submit the job description to a JES panel. We are keen to avoid pre-judging any panel result, as such we invite comments at this point on the job description specifically rather than discussion of the implementation of any resulting band. We do however recognise the complexity any change in banding would cause given the mix of job descriptions being used for colleagues carrying out an enforcement role (PSO and EO Trails both at PB3). We would like to offer assurance therefore that we would work closely with you on any implementation should a change in banding be indicated, including any required modification to our strategy to in-house delivery of contested breach Trials.

Response to Proposed Change: 

Within the detail of proposed change is an outline and expectation that there will be less Trials due to the change in PSO leading the prosecution of contested breaches – however no outline on how this is to be achieved, other than to state good negotiation. It was clear in the meeting held on 15/02/23, that any re-banding of grade from this would result in a review of the practicality of delivery of contested breaches through EO. This clearly does not consider the prefixed position of those currently employed with the EO job description. It also does not consider those currently employed (vast majority) under the remit of the PSO job description. We requested in the meeting of the 15/02/23 that these figures would be provided, this was actioned to of happened by COP 20/02/23. No information has been facilitated in this regard to date – therefore the ethos of consultation and agreed actions has not met the minimum threshold for appropriate engagement and consultation cannot be fully achieved as this information has to date not been forthcoming. 

We have outlined throughout any form of engagement that our interaction with members thus far has resulted in an overwhelming outcome that the training is insufficient, especially as the face to face sessions are facilitated virtually and does not give any real form of experiential learning. 

The job description suggested clearly outlines that the EO will not undertake the necessary training/ learning and experience of the PSO training route/ or as previously employed EO, had previous legal training for their roles – this is considered to be a situation , whereby there is a potential that staff with little experience/ understanding of the Legal frameworks, of the PS will be in Court, alone without the adequate knowledge in what could be quite challenging situations without adequate training/ experience or knowledge of the PS – this could result in reputational damage and undermining of the personnel involved in these scenarios, especially without what the members feel is adequate training and experiences. 

We are aware that where the ‘trials’ have been undertaken in some regions, this was on an optional basis for staff and the staff who were not confident in the training facilitated do not .undertake contested breaches. We are concerned that there are valuable members of staff with many years of experience within the Court Officer role, who will become further disenfranchised by the expectation to deliver contested breaches and have outlined within our discussions that they are likely to leave, rather than be put in an embarrassing situation in the Court, where they have previously felt respected and valued by the Courts. 

In light of the more recent HMIP SFOs (2023) and the information facilitated at Court – we are of the understanding that the EO will be expected to address any new information within the contested breach and effectively risk manage the situation within the court at that time on the day – this includes Bail applications, we question whose responsibility is it to undertake the safeguarding and Domestic abuse checks at that time and make active decisions about suitability of any bail application. This would effectively mean that this is risk managing and prosecuting at the same time – this is a conflict of interest. Due to the recent HMIP SFOs – this is an imperative responsibility which would be expected to ensure that risk is effectively managed at every juncture. 

We have added post it notes to the JD, with questions still left outstanding. Please could they be responded to. It is disappointing that the employer through a narrowed viewpoint cost savings exercise is further jeopardising retention figures, especially with Band 3 workers – who are the largest exiting cohort of staff, this is alongside the potential reputational damage that could result due to what staff describe as inadequate and inappropriately delivered training, that does not imbue confidence in delivering this work in the Court arena.

--oo00oo--

The latest news on Programmes

On Tuesday Napo held an all programmes members briefing to update on both the Target Operating Model (TOM) and the Next Generation of Programmes (NG). It was clear that there is a lot of anger amongst members affected as well as amongst the wider membership. This was echoed on Wednesday when the employer held the Job Description Questionnaire (JDQ) Workshop. Members very articulately made their feelings known about a number of issues not least the way the whole process has been managed from the outset. Members feel utterly devalued and angry by these proposals.

The JDQ workshop did eventually go ahead. There is still a lot of work needed and as such representatives at that workshop have been given until the Close of Play on 21st April to get their submissions in. The biggest issue appears to be the employers refusal to acknowledge current aspects of the role such as consultation, learning and development. The employer has written to staff informing them that this aspect of their work is not part of the job and should not be carried out, further angering members.
Key areas of disagreement

Napo, alongside our sister unions, Unison and GMB, are in disagreement with the employer on their proposals in a number of key areas.

Horizon: The future of the work of the regional sex offender units, the proposal to disband them and the future role of those currently carrying out this work is a red line for Napo. We have made, and continue to make, very strong representations that disbanding this critical specialist work poses a risk of harm to the public and completely de-values the work of the staff.

All three unions believe that this is vital public protection work that supports people not only on the programme but also sentence management staff, Court advice and training of new staff.

The TOM proposal will see this work being carried out by all programmes staff irrelevant of previous experience and will very little training in this complex work. If the Job Evaluation for the new Job Description comes out at a Band 3, this will mean that staff will be expected to carry out work that would previously have been paid at Band 4.

No career progression: Despite one of the key drivers for the Tom being career progression, the proposed model does the exact opposite and will leave programmes staff unable to work in other areas of the business as they will have a specific job description for programmes and limited Treatment/Programme Manager roles to progress to.

The Unions have proposed a two grade model that will allow staff to progress through the different programmes as they develop the competencies and experience. Starting as a new starter with core competencies, moving on to general offender behaviour programmes before being able to develop their learning and progressing on to BBR and Horizon. These two latter programmes should, in our view be Band 4 to reflect the complexity and risk management needs of the groups and individuals.

Training: As stated the proposal offers limited and inadequate training for programmes staff. Under the TOM, new starters to the service could be delivering BBR and Horizon in just 7 months of service. In light of the recent SFO reviews and the complexities in this area of work, Napo do not believe that this is sufficient to protect staff or the public.
Next Generation

Napo is slightly more positive about the NG proposals having now attended a number of design workshops and presentations. Those leading on this project are very experienced in the development and delivery of programmes and have engaged well with unions. Most notably it has now been confirmed that any future programmes will not delivered to a mixed cohort of clients as was originally suggested. There are a series of design workshops planned over April and May that Napo will be attending to look at specific cohorts of offence types and how the programme can focus on the needs and participants.
Next Steps

Napo will be scheduling more briefings going forward and we are currently speaking with Unison and GMB with a view of holding joint meetings.

The three unions have written to Amy Rees asking for an urgent meeting on the future of programmes and will raise all of our concerns with them directly.

--oo00oo--

Parole Board intervention by SoSfJ latest news as Dominic Raab resigns

The announcement that the Secretary of State for Justice has resigned today means another change in this pivotal Government position and we wait to see who will be appointed.

Meanwhile, members will be aware that the outcome of the most recent Court hearing regarding the changes to the parole system imposed by the just-departed Secretary of State for Justice was that the guidance and training issued to staff from July to October 2022 was found to be unlawful. The Court is awaiting further evidence, to submitted by the parties by mid-May, to determine whether to initiate contempt proceedings against any person(s) – for instance, the then Secretary of State or senior figures in HMPPS – and/or whether to give further directions.

HMPPS have responded by issuing further guidance and holding several online briefing events on their latest instructions in recent weeks. Significant questions of professional practice and the impact of these latest changes on member’s workload remain and we will continue to take forward with HMPPS. These include, but are not limited to, the additional workload resulting from further reports staff may be expected to provide the Parole Board with, the change from previously providing a recommendation to the current “professional opinion” and that this should now only be given if the member of staff feels able to do so.

On a separate issue, Napo is also concerned regarding an aspect of the press coverage of two ‘public’ Oral Hearings that have taken place so far, in terms of the use of selective quotes taken from the evidence offered by workers to the Parole Board. We will continue to take make clear our belief that such selective quoting fails to consider not only the wider context but also the fuller evidence provided by the worker involved.

Feedback from Napo members has been vital in raising issues and concerns relating to the parole changes with HMPPS since we were made aware of these changes last summer. As ever, we would be grateful if members could continue to keep us updated with their experiences of the parole system as this new guidance issued becomes part of our practice in the coming weeks and months.

Friday, 7 April 2023

Latest From Napo 234

This from yesterday's mailout to members:-

BBC Radio 4 lays bare the state of the Probation Service

This week saw the launch of a major feature by the investigative journalist Danny Shaw. This covered the tragic events of a Serious Further Offence in Killamarsh, Derbyshire, in September 2021 and the current state of the Probation Service (England and Wales) following its reunification into public control in June 2021.

Various interviews are featured in the 31 minute Podcast entitled: ‘Probation in Peril’ . These include comments by H.M. Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell, Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden Edwards, and Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence along with some harrowing contributions from the families of the victims and a number of Probation Practitioners, whose testimonies were anonymised. We would want to express appreciation to those Napo members who agreed to take part in the programme.

Napo Survey yields startling results

Some months ago, Napo were contacted by Danny Shaw to explore whether we would be willing to launch a survey of our members working in the Probation Service to ascertain your views about the levels of staffing, the size of caseloads and whether it is felt that Probation provides a good service. As can be heard in the programme, over 900 members responded and the results make for stark listening. Some two thirds of staff surveyed said that their workplace was desperately short of staff and that 50% of respondents felt that Probation was not providing a good enough service. Napo will be publishing the full results of the survey in due course.

Chief Probation Officer agrees that TR ‘failed.’

A notable contribution also came from Kim Thornden-Edwards who, in response to a question about the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) programme implemented by former Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling, called it an ‘interesting part of Probations history.’ Whilst Napo members would take issue with that description it was good to hear the Chief Probation Officer quickly confirm her agreement that ‘TR had failed.’

Napo’s conclusions

Ian Lawrence comments: ‘Much of the ground covered by Justin Russell will be all too familiar to our members facing excessive workloads, huge numbers of vacancies within their PDU’s and sickness rates which would be a lot worse were it not for the dedication of staff who often present for work when they should not. Adding that: ‘Make no mistake, this excellently produced programme is a sombre and at times traumatic reminder of what happens to public safety when Governments do not listen to the warnings that were made before the disastrous part-privatisation of the service. It seems pretty clear to me that we will need a new Government with a serious pledge to re-invest in the Probation Service before things start to change for the better.’

--oo00oo--

VLO and Interventions Updates and a request

The VLO job descriptions are now (finally) with the trade unions for consultation. All those who attended the workshops will also have a copy of the document, so please send all comments to Carole Doherty for collation in Napo’s formal response. We have also requested a copy of the job description questionnaire but have not yet had a response.

Programmes

The employer unfortunately issued a communication earlier today to all programmes staff, to which Napo immediately objected as it did not accurately reflect the position of the trade unions. Management have subsequently apologised for this error and have now reissued the communication. To be clear, all three trade unions do not agree with the proposed removal of the DSOUs teams (and not just the future direction of programmes to men convicted of sexual offences). Management also identify their intention to operate with just one facilitator job description. This is of course a disappointing result, though we are still arguing the case that more training is needed to equip facilitators with the skill and training needed to work with people convicted of domestic and sexual abuse and learning disabilities and with neuro diversity, and that people should be properly rewarded for it.

Since the last JES workshop we have had 3 all day meetings with the employer which sadly, hasn’t yielded much movement, though it is good to report that the training team has made some adjustments in relation to their proposed training package for new employees, though we are still questioning the robustness of it. The material for the job descriptions has been collated and is with the trade unions for comment, and there is due to be a further joint workshop later this month to discuss the job description questionnaire, prior to it going to the JES panel and we would hope it would be evaluated at Band 4.

Could we ask if anyone has an electronic copy of the previous community programme ‘The Thames Valley Groupwork Programme’ (management manual) and any job descriptions where it describes the role of the facilitators delivering programmes for men convicted of sexual offences. Together with any documentation which highlights the consultancy and/or the training element of their roles, could they send to Carole please.

The Next Generation Programme will be discussed at a meeting later this month, and some workshops are being set up to discuss in more detail with facilitators, TMs and PMs . Due to the strong concerns raised by Napo and the other trade unions, communications have gone out clearly stating that the Next Gen programmes will be separated into offence types and with further separate groups for people with neurodiversity and others for those with intellectual disability.

UPW

We have been made aware of some issues in restricted accommodation in some PDU’s for our Unpaid Work Colleagues, please share details with Carole if this is happening to you. As you will be aware, there are ongoing issues with the pay and Unsocial Hours Payments and, as previously reported, all three unions have registered a National Dispute with the employer in relation to this.

DASOS

It is really good to hear from members that the DASO away day was a really positive experience, and the confidence that the rewriting of the manual will be a truly collaborative exercise.

Saturday, 18 March 2023

Latest From Napo 232

Here we have selected quotes from the Napo mailout sent to all members yesterday:-

TRADE UNIONS OPPOSE REFORM OF PROGRAMMES DELIVERY

Our members will be aware that the joint Probation Service trade unions (TUs) have now been involved in negotiations about the future of offending behaviour programme delivery for almost a year. Despite our best efforts, we are no closer to agreement with the employer’s proposals.

We are aware that the employer has stated that there have been over 30 hours of consultation on the subject, although the TUs would question how meaningful this was. We have continued to emphasise our concerns over how the proposals will negatively impact the management of the risk of harm to the public, in addition to looking after the interests of our members. Below is an update on the issues the TUs have raised with the employer.

WHY A SINGLE FACILITATOR JOB DESCRIPTION WILL BE BAD NEWS

The aim of the employer is to replace all current facilitator job descriptions (JD) at band 3 and band 4 with one JD which may end up being evaluated at pay band 3. The TUs believe that the JD should differ between general offending behaviour programmes (GOBP) staff, such as those who deliver TSP, and those who deliver work with men who commit sexual offences (MCSO) and domestic abuse (DA).

Consultancy, delivery of non-accredited one-to-one work, guidance to sentence management and provision of Learning and Development support to Sentence Management staff will differ with risk levels and complexity. Those subject to conditions to complete a general Offender Behaviour Programme (OBP) are not likely to require significant consultancy, guidance or Learning and Development support

The TUs feel that the creation of two facilitator roles at Band 3 and Band 4 better represents the work of our members. Work with more complex and high-risk groups (DA and MCSO) justifies differing salary bands to other types of Offending Behaviour Programme (OBP) facilitator staff.

DAMAGING TO CAREER PROGRESSION

Under the current proposals, the only career development pathway for facilitators will be to leave facilitation. Our proposals for Band 3 and Band 4 facilitator roles would offer greater flexibility in terms of career progression that would support remaining in facilitation.

The TUs have continued to emphasise the need for the Probation Service to develop a career progression model whereby people new into the service deliver structured interventions and TSP, allowing time to develop their knowledge, experience and skill before they progress to deliver Building Better Relationships (BBR) and programmes for those convicted of sexual offences, if they choose to do so.

MORE INFORMATION NEEDED

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:
  • The justification for a single facilitator job description
  • The pay band at which a single facilitator role will be paid? If the outcome of the job evaluation process puts the role at Band 3, our pay band 4 members face losing up to £11,000 per annum, if they want to continue to deliver programmes. This includes some former CRC facilitators.
  • The arrangements for Band 4 members currently working in Interventions to return to sentence management. These members may have been out of sentence management for many years. As a minimum, these members, would require a full package of training and a gradual acquisition of a full case load.
  • Whether non-qualified Band 4 facilitators who choose to leave Interventions would be offered pay protection if they were to return to a Band 3 PSO role.
  • The consequences for new staff of failing Core Skills or programme specific training
DEDICATED SEX OFFENDER UNITS (DSOU) TO BE DISBANDED

Under the current proposals the employer intends for all facilitators to deliver all accredited programmes and structured interventions. This will result in existing DSOUs being disbanded, resulting in the loss of the accumulated expertise and knowledge held by our members in these teams and placing the public at greater risk of serious harm.

The TUs have been clear that keeping these teams would not only mean keeping current expertise in work with men who commit sexual offences but also allow for the development of expertise and knowledge in work with men who commit DA offences and engage in sexually abusive behaviour.

This would provide an opportunity to enhance our work with this group to improve risk management and public safety. The TUs continue to be clear that DSOUs should be expanded to incorporate those most experienced facilitators in the delivery of domestic abuse programmes to provide the same level of consultancy and support to sentence management and stakeholders that members in existing DSOUs provide.

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:
  • What will be asked of members, who, for whatever reason, don’t wish to work with those who commit domestic abuse offences or are convicted of sexual offences?
  • What will be asked of members who deliver structured interventions and don’t wish to deliver accredited programmes?
TREATMENT MANAGERS & PROGRAMME MANAGERS

Under the employer’s proposals, the TUs believe it is unlikely that Treatment Managers will have the capacity to provide current levels of professional support and guidance to probation practitioners and relevant stakeholders. This would be an increased risk at a time when the Probation Service has a large and increasing number of inexperienced probation practitioners and managers. It is clear that there are currently no substantive plans in place to ensure that competent clinical advice or support to probation practitioners or stake holders is in place.

The TUs are concerned that Treatment Managers may be expected to oversee programmes of which they have no experience rather than delivering twice before taking up the role. The TUs have pointed out that this would clearly result in negative consequences for the standard of programme delivery and lead to a reduction in the quality of risk management, putting the public at increased risk of harm.

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:
  • The employer’s lack of response to issues raised around the potential consequences of staff inexperience and its implication for risk management, in the face of recent SFO reports and HMIP inspections.
COST!

The plans for Interventions will result in significant cost, in addition to the costs of developing a new programme. The TUs believe this money could be better invested in increasing facilitator numbers for existing programmes.

A SINGLE ACCREDITED OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAMME?

The employer’s current plans are to replace all current accredited programmes with a single programme for all offenders. The information so far provided by the employer does not, in the TUs’ opinion, justify the plans put forward and indicates no significant work on a new programme has yet taken place.

An evaluation of a single programme approach used in Canada which has been seen by the TUs did not yield positive results. The TUs continue to have significant concerns in relation to:
  • The future of the Domestic Abuse Safety Officer role should BBR be replaced with a single programme
  • How Programme Managers will ensure the safety of our members and people on probation if DA perpetrators and MCSO are included in the same group
  • How Programme Managers will be able to ensure there are no victims of DA or sexual offences in groups
  • How it will be possible to facilitate and ensure the engagement of group members in large groups
  • How sexual deviance will be tackled as part of a single OBP, as this is one of the biggest risk indicators
WHAT NEXT?

The unions are opposed to the HMPPS proposals for Programmes because we believe that they will reduce public protection at a time when tackling violence against women and girls is finally getting the attention and resources it deserves in other government departments. HMPPS is trying to force generic job descriptions onto complex work areas in order to save money in much the same way as the NPS did at the time of E3. It did not work then, and it will not work now.

So, we will continue to campaign against these dangerous changes both within and outside HMPPS.

--oo00oo--

Excerpts from Napo's formal response to Parole changes

The following are excerpts from Napo’s formal initial response as a trade union, dated the 14th of July, to the information we were provided with at that time by HMPPS on the changes made by the Secretary of State for Justice to the parole process.

“It’s outrageous that this fundamental change was introduced without any meaningful consultation or notice in advance of the Statutory Instrument…

…It’s clear that no current practitioners or relevant stakeholders have been consulted in advance on what is in effect a dangerously inept political ‘power grab’. This demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend the severe consequences of the huge mistake being made by doing so…

…Our concern is that this is a decision which is wholly politically motivated, made in response to a tiny proportion of individual cases which have received significant national publicity. Unfortunately, experience tells us that this never makes for considered or effective decision making in the criminal justice system…

…In thousands of instances every year no recommendation of any sort will be made to the Parole Board, with experienced, trusted experts such as Probation staff being actively prohibited from doing so by the Secretary of State. This significantly increases the risk to the public, and will damage their confidence in the criminal justice system…

…So far there has been no consultation with the recognised experts in this area of practice – the staff currently writing these reports and attending Oral Hearings. In fact, the Secretary of State has – potentially deliberately – avoided any such process of engagement. How can the recognised trade unions and their members have any confidence that this guidance will be fit for purpose, especially given the mass of contradictions and flaws inherent in this plan and the extremely limited time available for its production?...”

We’ve taken the unusual step of including these excerpts in this communication following this week’s judgement of the High Court on cases related to the changes imposed by the Secretary of State for Justice in July 2022 –
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bailey-and-Morris-judgment.pdf

To be in the position of having received such a damning indictment on their behaviour and judgement, has resulted in HMPPS carrying out the Minister’s stated aims in a manner that was described in the judgement as “unlawful” in multiple respects.

While we are aware of the possibility the Secretary of State may appeal this judgement – and given lack of any apparent judgement and sense of decency this remains entirely likely – it is difficult to see how they can recover from abject defeat in Court.

As detailed in previous communications over the months since these changes were announced Napo has consistently taken the fight to HMPPS on behalf of its members on this matter at every opportunity possible in the months since these changes were announced. We have made repeated representations about the dire effects that these changes would clearly cause, both for our members and the wider criminal justice system, then unceasingly brought these to the employer’s attention as often as we were able to after their implementation. In addition to this we have worked with others interested parties – such as in the Houses of Parliament, charitable organisations involved or the legal representatives of the individuals party to the Court case above – to attempt to overturn these changes at the earliest opportunity. In doing this we are grateful to the members who have shared their experiences and concerns with us to enable Napo to better represent all our members and to defend the importance of our professional judgement.

Napo believe this stands as the most recent example to be added to the increasingly long list of instances when HMPPS should have listened to its workers, and their trade union representatives, to avoid making disastrous decisions. Members can be assured we will cite this in the future in our contacts with HMPPS in relation to our reasoned, critical opposition to, for example, the proposed changes to programmes as well as ‘One HMPPS’.

Tuesday, 25 February 2020

Third Sector News

I notice Clinks have news about those new probation contracts and the bid by the third sector to get a slice of the action:- 

Probation review update : commissioning of rehabilitative and resettlement services  


Before Christmas, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) began the competition for Probation Delivery Partners who will be responsible for delivering accredited programmes, unpaid work and structured interventions – read more about this in my last blog. They also ran a series of market engagement webinars on the services they plan to commission through the Dynamic Framework – read the slides from those webinars here.

This blog provides an update on what stage those commissioning processes are at.

During the Dynamic Framework market engagement, Clinks provided regular feedback from the sector on the proposals. We welcomed the decision to commission services at Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) area level following our feedback that commissioning services across whole probation areas would likely exclude the involvement of the majority of the sector. We were also very pleased that following discussions with Clinks and the women’s sector regarding proposals for women’s specialist services, all areas of identified need will now be commissioned as a single contract lot for women.

Below is an update from HMPPS on the stage that each competition has now reached:

Probation Delivery Partner

The Selection Questionnaire phase of the Probation Delivery Partner competition is now completed. This is the questionnaire issued by contracting authorities to prospective bidders interested in securing public sector works, supply or services contracts as a way of short-listing interested parties which meet the applicable selection criteria. Bidders have been informed whether or not they have been successful and successful bidders were issued invitations to tender on 6 February and bid responses are due by 20 March.

Dynamic Framework

Following feedback from Market Engagement events with interested suppliers, HMPPS have amended their proposed categories on the Dynamic Framework. They will run competitions for services at Police and Crime Commissioner geographical level in the following groups:

1. Accommodation

2. Education, Training, Employment and Finance, Benefits, Debt

3. Dependency and Recovery (previously named Addictions and Dependencies)

4. Wellbeing Services (which is made up of the following categories; Lifestyle & Associates, Emotional & Personal Wellbeing, Family & Significant Others, Social Inclusion)

5. Women’s Interventions (which meet the needs identified above in one package)

They anticipate launching qualification for the dynamic framework in May. They are taking more time before launch to identify and assess the regional requirements at of National Probation Service Regional Directors for each lot described above.

Ahead of launching the Dynamic Framework and during the qualification for the framework, they will run a series of engagement events across the country, to raise awareness to the widest possible range of potential providers, and answer questions on the qualification process.

In addition they will inform the market of the call-off competition pipeline and continue market engagement to provide more information on the specification for each call-off.

Continuing to influence on behalf of the sector

We remain in regular contact with the probation review team as they develop plans for the Dynamic Framework and have offered support to provide knowledge and intelligence from the voluntary sector to engage with their work to identify and assess regional requirements in each lot. We are also in discussions about how we might support the engagement events when the Dynamic Framework is launched in order to ensure that the voluntary sector is fully able to participate in these.

We continue to highlight that grants are essential to the voluntary sector’s full engagement with any future probation model. We are also providing feedback on where the commissioning processes might be overly burdensome and present an uneven playing field for the sector – for instance with regards to IT assurance requirements.

We also continue to raise significant concerns that specialist services for black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people are not being considered as a day one service (the services that will be commissioned directly by HMPPS from day one of implementation of the new model). We understand that this is because in some areas BAME service user numbers will be very low. However, we feel that in order to meet the Lammy Review recommendations, in both their letter and spirit, specific services for BAME people should be commissioned as day one services at least in areas with high BAME caseloads. Otherwise specialist BAME organisations will only find themselves commissioned as sub-contractors in wider supply chains, if at all.

We will continue to provide the sector with updates through Light Lunch, Twitter, blogs and our probation webpage.

Thursday, 29 August 2019

Devil in the Detail

As the following news reaches me:-
"I have heard on the grapevine that the date to move us back to NPS has slipped to June 2021"
thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following:- 

NAPO Cymru
SUMMER NEWSLETTER 2 2019

“Goodwill is a reciprocal thing”

As we approach the reunification of Offender Management, planned for 2nd December 2019, there is still much to be clarified and finalised. Your national and branch officers are working flat out to protect both your interests and your profession.

What follows is pertinent to CRC staff transferring to NPS, NPS staff, and staff in interventions and unpaid work.

The recently completed office briefings for CRC and NPS staff have given you a general picture of the future shape of probation both in the reunified OM functions, and in Interventions and Unpaid Work, also moving to the KSS operating model.

We continue to campaign for the full reunification of Probation. Unpaid work and programmes are core probation business, and in the wake of the abject failure of Grayling’s “reforms”, we have yet to hear any cogent argument for, instead of reunifying probation, moving the dividing line between public and private sector keeping unpaid work and interventions in the for-profit sector. This is not over yet, and it won’t be over in December.

We are however where we are, so Napo is on the case to protect the interests of our members and our profession as we go through the planned changes in December.

From our negotiations and from the briefings you have attended, we get a picture of the headlines, the broad shape of the proposed operating model, and that the devil is in the detail and there is much yet to be finalised.

Given how near these changes are, thoughts naturally turn to the basics, namely how much will I get paid, when will I get paid, where will I be based? Suffice to say that we are still negotiating.

All staff have been invited to send questions regarding the changes to these two addresses

For NPS staff futurepsw@justice.gov.uk

For CRC staff comms@ksscrc.probationservices.co.uk

And we strongly urge you to do so.

You have been told in briefings that “nobody will be disadvantaged”. You have also been repeatedly urged to extend goodwill and tolerance through the change process. You may wish to probe these generalisations a bit in your questions to the email addresses above:
  • Goodwill is a reciprocal thing: staff moving from CRC to NPS should not under any circumstances have a six-week gap between pay-checks. A modicum of goodwill by your employers (and it will be in the season of goodwill to all that this will occur) would see measures being put in place to smooth this pay disruption. Napo is pressing for interim payments
  • Training: There is a planned three-month period during which staff transferred from CRC to NPS will receive induction training in Civil Service processes and policies. The inference is that cover will be provided from those already in situ. Those already in situ look to have full workloads already, so in the spirit of goodwill we are being exhorted to extend, staff shouldering extra work should expect suitable rewards (overtime, TOIL for example). Napo is pressing for this.
  • On the subject of caseloads, the very high caseloads carried by (“heroic” according to HMIP) CRC staff will eventually be dispersed across the newly reunified NPS offender management staff under the mixed caseload plans. From the briefings to date we hear that there is “a bigger pool” of staff, and of a new WMT. Napo is seeking clarification of the new WMT calculation
Direct Debit: make sure you stay in: FOR YOUR PROTECTION AND YOUR PROFESSION

Staff transferring from the CRC need to ensure that their Napo subs are paid by direct debit. There is no facility for NPS members to have their subs paid from payroll: this cancellation of the “check-off” agreement was made by Chris Grayling as a move designed to weaken the position of Unions. Don’t let him get away with this. It is easy to arrange: click on the button on this link https://www.napo.org.uk/SWITCH

Friday, 17 January 2014

Omnishambles Not On Target - Shock!

Just as predicted by Joe Kuipers, Chair of Avon and Somerset Probation Trust, the slow train crash that is the TR Omnishambles is in trouble and the schedule is slipping. This just in from Napo HQ:-

Dear Members,
Trusts were today given an official stay of execution until 31st May in a notice issued by Michael Spurr. This is recognition that the timetable set out by the Secretary of State just isn’t safe.

Napo, alongside sister justice unions and others interested in safeguarding probation will be seeking clarification about the wider impact of this delay, in particular on the proposed share-sale timetable. If it’s too risky to close Trusts on 1st April then any planned share sales must also be delayed – even Grayling has said all along they need at least 6 months for CRC’s to bed-in before they can be sold off. This two month delay would take us into 2015 before planned share sale. This takes us very close to the General Election period and any further delay can bring us over the campaign finishing line victorious.

The list of identified and recognised risks has, if anything over the last few weeks got longer not shorter. The risks continue to cover professional delivery risks and practical, organisational concerns – ranging from still developing a case risk assignment tool through to not being able to set up any HR systems until staff have all been assigned. The unions have been working hard to address transfer “measures” with the PA and MoJ Officials but we will not compromise members’ interests or public safety to fit a politically motivated timetable and there is increasing acceptance that many of the challenges are difficult to address in a way that works.

The unresolved risks are just as critical to the share sale process and timetable. In short, you can’t put an accurate price on something if you don’t know what it accurately looks like and how it actually works. That is as true for any seller as it is for any buyer. Until all of the risks are addressed the sell-off is economically as well as morally and professionally unsafe.

With competition very limited and the risks on all sides high then the price goes up and Grayling may not be able to afford a sell-off. Any reputable bidders will also be concerned about being blamed for future failures when buying something that doesn’t work. Today’s delay in closing the Trusts highlights the continuing risks and should be seen as massively positive for our campaign to prevent the sell-off.

This is now an even more critical campaigning period – as Sherlock might say, “The game is afoot.” Michael Spurr’s letter to Trusts says, “We now, more than ever, need to maintain the momentum for change we have achieved through the hard work done to date”. These words hold far more credibility when transferred to your efforts and hard work in fighting the break-up and sell-off of a successful service. Every grievance registered is logged and passed to bidders to add to their risk columns. Today’s announcement and the delay in the split shows that momentum is really with us.

Keep up the campaigning and look out for further updates and more information over the coming days and weeks.

Yours sincerely,

Dean Rogers
Assistant General Secretary

This from Heather Munro, Chief Executive of London Probation Trust:-

Transforming Rehabilitation Update – Termination of Probation Trust Contracts 

We have been waiting to hear from the Ministry of Justice about the formal termination of our contract.  In a teleconference with Chiefs and Chairs earlier today, it was confirmed that Probation Trust contracts will not now be terminated until 31 May.   

This means that you will continue to be employed by London Probation Trust until 31 May 2014. 

Please note that the assignment of staff to the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company to new organisations will continue as planned.  We are expected to complete this allocation process by 1 April. 

The new date is designed to enable staff in both Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) and in the National Probation Service (NPS) to trial the new ways of working before the Ministry of Justice formally completes the transfer to the new governance arrangements. 

The Ministry of Justice is also intending to make the full transition to new IT and support systems in areas like HR by the end of May. 

  
From 1 April, cases will be allocated according to the future structure.  However, problematic cases will not be transferred between probation staff unless there is a suitable time to do so which ensures there is not a risk to public safety. 

Stop Press - this is the MoJ spin doctors at their best:-

Important milestone for critical probation reforms


A further step towards the Government’s reforms to rehabilitation has been announced today as probation trusts were informed that staff will be assigned to one of the new organisations responsible for managing offenders and tackling our shockingly high reoffending rates by 1 April.
Notice has now been given that probation trust contracts will be closed down by 31 May this year, as plans have been finalised for the transfer to new arrangements. It is expected that probation staff will be working in their new teams by the start of April, with some teams in place as early as February. The new ways of working will then be fully tested and systems rolled out ready for the formal transfer.
The new system will see current probation officers transferred to one of the new Community Rehabilitation Companies that will work to rehabilitate low and medium risk offenders, or the new National Probation Service that will be tasked with protecting the public from the most dangerous criminals. More than half a million crimes are committed each year across England and Wales by those who have already broken the law and our reforms are aimed at finally tackling these unacceptable reoffending rates that see more needless victims created every day.
Justice Minister Jeremy Wright said:
“These reforms will finally address the glaring gap in our system that currently sees around 50,000 short-term prisoners released onto the streets each year with no support, unchecked, to go back to their criminal ways. We have always been clear that these thorough plans will be rolled out in a controlled way that ensures public safety at every stage. We will continue to engage with all relevant parties as these reforms are introduced to ensure a smooth transition.”
Testing of new systems has already begun and will continue until the transfer to new arrangements. A key element of the programme will see a nationwide network of resettlement prisons created so nearly all offenders are released into the area in which they will live and be supervised. Our new approach will see providers only paid in full if they are successful at reducing reoffending, making hard-working tax-payers’ money go further and ensuring all sentences deliver both punishment and rehabilitation.
We expect successful bidders to be in place and delivering services by 2015.

Thursday, 1 November 2012

Denial

Reading the latest edition of 'Inside Time' I was particularly struck by a piece concerning prisoners in denial at HMP Wakefield and written by Paul Sullivan. The article refers to the recent HMI report by Chief Inspector Nick Hardwick and his observation that:- 

‘The most significant concern we identified at our last inspection in 2009 remained. Almost half the men at Wakefield were in denial about their offence – to some degree refusing to take responsibility for their offending. There were no programmes available at Wakefield to tackle the behaviour and attitudes of men in denial and, as a consequence, little effective work was done with them.’

Actually I'm not sure there are any programmes specifically designed for prisoners in denial within the prison system, but no doubt I will be corrected if I'm wrong. Anyway, Paul Sullivan  suggests that it is beyond the legitimate remit of the Inspectorate to be 'publicly trying to discredit' prisoners who are in denial and that by raising the issue it 'impugns their integrity.' 

I have to say this is a somewhat brave stance to take talking as it is about a Category A maximum security prison containing 750 men, most of whom have been convicted of the most serious sexual crimes it is possible to imagine. Most will be serving life sentences and therefore at such time as their tariff has been reached, judgements will have to be made by the Parole Board as to whether it is safe for release to be considered. 

Particularly in relation to sexual offending, in my experience denial and minimisation are quite normal. In order to try and effect sentence progression, and in the end to be able to afford the public a degree of protection if release is granted, it is the legitimate business of probation and the prison authorities to challenge denial intelligently, but carefully. Of course history shows that there may be some innocent men wrongly convicted, but the vast majority simply do not want to confront their offending for what ever reason. The article goes on:-

"With the removal of the need for evidence in trials for alleged sexual offences (1994 Criminal Justice Act), the payment of massive compensation to accusers (even if there is no conviction or even trial), the burgeoning of police trawling and allegations of historic abuse, for which there is no defence or alibi after many decades, and the recent concerns of helpful evidence going ‘missing’ and failure to disclose evidence that would help the defence, the window for innocent men being convicted and locked up is open wide and, despite mountainous hurdles placed in the way of any men trying to have a conviction overturned many hundreds do succeed each year, - although NOMS will not admit to having a figure many support groups keep track."

Just as we are all still coming to terms with the sheer scale of Jimmy Savile's sexual offending and historic prosecutions of others may begin, although perhaps not intended, this article appears to verge on being both naive and apologistic towards sex offenders. HMI Nick Hardwick is spot on in drawing attention to this extremely challenging group within the prison system who cannot be allowed to simply deny their offending, 'do their time' and hope to be released to possibly offend again.  

Sunday, 2 January 2011

So, What of 'What Works'?

Just recently there has been a spirited and welcome resurgence in debate on the NAPO forum pages and I was particularly interested in contributions from people about 'programmes'. I discover that I am not alone in feeling that the whole headlong rush into the pseudo-science based 'treatment' model of offenders was ill-thought out, based on dodgy research and ideologically-driven. Rob Palmer neatly sums up the situation thus:-

"Programmes are proving of limited value because, increasinlgy, they are seen as stand alone 'cures' for the targetted behaviour and not part of a wider intervention as they were in the pre-what works days.

The fact remains that the only way to secure change is for trained professionals to spend long enough with the people they work with to a) learn what makes them tick and b) find which of the myriad ways of working available will meet their particular need. This continued search for a magic bullet, be that the perfect assessment tool or the perfect programme, is a fools errand that comes from business models that are about efficiency NOT effectiveness. The increasing reliance on the efficient production of a useless product is what is killing our credibility. We need a model of intervention like the medical profession. Managers manage resources, clinicians manage treatment . The current arrangements see bureaucrats determining the most appropriate means of addressing offending behaviour."


I have recently discussed the whole sorry saga initiated under the 'What Works' agenda and how funding cuts are at last causing a critical eye to be cast over the whole expensive probation programme industry. Just by way of a re-cap, here is Martin Gosling, a former SPO writing in Criminal Law and Justice Weekly on 25th July 2009:-

"A cornerstone of traditional probation supervision was the establishment of a relationship between the offender and the supervising officer who, in earlier times, was enjoined to befriend each one of his flock. By adjusting the content, frequency and pace of interviews to the circumstances, characteristics, deficits and abilities of each individual, an officer was able to anticipate crises and was permitted to be flexible in enforcing sanctions if a longer term goal could be achieved by their postponement. Against this background the greatest effect of the revolution on previously well established probation practice has been the introduction of “what works” theory and “evidence based” interventions."

"One of the most startling pronouncements from the newly created National Probation Directorate was that all previously existing forms of probation intervention with offenders were ineffective, unproven and unscientific. They would be replaced by accredited forms of groupwork that would teach cognitive skills to those offenders, in custody and in the community, who demonstrated measureable deficits in their thinking patterns. Such was that emphasis given to this diktat that in prisons where groups were being run by seconded probation staff — victim awareness; addressing relationships and others — governors issued instructions that they should be immediately halted, even if mid-way through, and should not be completed. In the eyes of the new regime, established probation theory was de trop. The old methods were deemed primitive and a waste of everybody's time."

The trouble is that the whole 'What Works' bandwagon that we so enthusiastically imported from North America and took up whole-heartedly here, we have been busy exporting with prosletising zeal to the rest of Europe. Here we have the Council of European Probation reporting on a STARR conference held in 2010 on the very topic of 'What Works' and its spread into Eastern Europe. It seems that the somewhat grandly named Strengthening Transnational Approaches to Reducing Re-offending has been set up specifically for the purpose, but a hint of trouble is belied in the statement that 'Those Brits are trying to conquer Europe with their programmes approach.' But the CEP says it is a neutral broker, trusted by all member nations. My advice to our European colleagues is to watch what happens over here in the coming months as I suspect there will shortly be some official doubts being expressed as to the efficacy of 'What Works' after all.    

Wednesday, 29 December 2010

A Cautionary Tale

The Probation Service that I joined in 1985 used a tried and tested method of dealing with clients and it was known as the Casework Method. It basically involved looking at an individual, their history and background and through the building of a trusting relationship, attempts were made to change that persons attitude and situation for the better in the hope that offending would either cease or be reduced. This philosophy had developed over many years, was widely understood and became to be known as 'advise, assist and befriend'.

Now possibly like many other people, I just assumed this was the only way of doing things and it would just continue. I assumed it must work for some people, but if it didn't it was because of environmental factors such as unemployment, homelessness, abuse, mental health etc. and as a result the probation service was clearly set up by society to try and deal with these environmental issues. We duly got stuck into setting up projects that sought to address the environmental deficits such as housing, training, employment etc. These were exciting days and I just assumed we were doing the right thing, that it would work and just carry on.

But then I became aware of what became known as the 'What Works' agenda. Basically academics, mostly in North America, were saying that evidence showed that we were barking up the wrong tree and that the problem lay with clients thinking. Apparently if these cognitive deficits could be tackled in structured and specially designed groupwork programmes, evidence proved that such an approach was more effective in reducing re-offending. This was seized upon as the magic bullet solution and programmes were started first in prison and quickly rolled out in the community following some limited experimental pathfinder projects. The timing was perfect because the 43 independent services were effectively nationalised and programmes became the holy grail imposed from above that replaced all the ad hoc local groupwork projects. Entry and training requirements had changed and all new recruits were required to train as programme tutors.

Basically the massive focus on programmes came to highlight even further the cultural shift within the Service. Many old-style officers refused to have anything to do with it and remained deeply sceptical that such a proscribed intervention that did little to address environmental issues would work. In essence, right from the beginning the joke was that 'What Works' didn't bloody work and was never likely to. Of course it did for some, but not the majority and certainly not to the extent that anywhere near justified the resources put into it. When at a conference I tackled an academic on this point she said 'well 'What Works' was always meant to be a question, not a statement'.

Anyway the whole sorry saga is about to come to an end as one of the inevitable results of spending cuts. Of course management and the unions and possibly some academics will say it's all a terrible mistake and sex offenders and domestic violence perpetrators will go 'untreated'. Indeed that would be a mistake, but the answer is that we return to something we had before, namely an holistic approach with some old-fashioned groupwork and casework tailored to an individuals needs, not the present factory-style attempt at processing people and trying to localise the causes of crime onto individual pathologies. I've never been impressed with the thinking deficit argument alone and never will be.