An Appeal

A freelance journalist is working on a story about the MoJ's plans to disband SPOs working in specialist sex offender units, and replace Horizon and iHorizon with the one-size-fits-all Next Generation Accredited Programmes. She has assurance from experts outside the MoJ that the plans are definitely going ahead, but the official MoJ line is that there are no definite plans in the immediate future. If anyone can come forward to help, with the assurance of full anonymity if needed, you can reach her at hijessicaebradley@gmail.com

Addendum

Also - if anyone has any documentation showing that HMPPS forbids contracted researchers from talking to the media or being critical of HMPPS - she'd be very keen to hear from you.

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Can Probation Keep Us Safe?

BBC 1 Panorama May 23rd 9.00pm

When dangerous criminals leave prison, the Probation Service should monitor them and keep the public safe. But is it up to the job? As convicted criminals across England and Wales are released from prison early to tackle chronic overcrowding, Panorama investigates the Probation Service and asks if it's doing enough to manage high-risk prisoners. Serving probation officers warn that their caseloads are putting public safety at risk, and families whose loved ones have been murdered by convicted criminals on probation ask why the system failed them.

IPP and Programmes

I notice the shocking situation regarding IPP prisoners was the subject of an article in The Times by Mathew Parris a few weeks ago:-

"On recent figures more than 3,000 IPP prisoners are rotting in our jails. According to an important paper by Dr Harry Annison of Southampton University, some 80 per cent of them have now gone beyond what would have been the tariff for their crime. Around 470 are more than eight years beyond.

The effect on these people and their families outside is appalling. In 2015 the Prison Reform Trust reported that the incidence of self-harm per thousand IPP prisoners had risen to 550, almost three times that of prisoners serving a life sentence. Without certainty, prisoners despair. There have been suicides and attempted suicides, and there will be more.

Prepare yourself, then, for a shock. IPPs were abolished nearly a decade ago!

Labour’s David Blunkett introduced them as home secretary after a few well-publicised incidents of reoffending by violent or sex offenders. The sentence was intended to be sparingly used but the courts started dishing out IPP sentences by the bucketload.

It had been estimated some 900 such sentences would result. When the figure passed 8,000, ministers took fright. Blunkett has said the outcome “weighs heavily” on him. And in 2012 Kenneth Clarke, justice secretary in the 2010 coalition government, scrapped the sentence altogether.

But to rebut (I suspect) accusations that ministers were “soft on crime”, existing IPP prisoners were to stay locked up, though no new ones would be sent down. Clarke himself later described the anomaly as “absurd”.

IPP inmates, trapped among other prisoners who know their release dates, suffer the injustice as you or I would.

The understaffed and hard-pressed Parole Board, meanwhile, faces a waiting list of IPP prisoners where in each case the board must prove a negative before release: that the applicant would not be a serious risk if released on licence.

Some undoubtedly would: three in ten of all prisoners of every kind do re-offend. The more IPP prisoners they release, the more likely a grisly case of re-offending will hit the headlines. Ministers quail before that prospect. Yet they know the injustice is monstrous, and all those with whom I’ve discussed this are deeply uncomfortable about it."

But as we all know, in order to make a case for parole, a prisoner must first be deemed not to be a serious risk and that invariably involves participating in Offending Behaviour programmes. This from Inside Time serves to highlight the situation:-  

Decline in OB programmes

Courses fall by 40% in a decade, raising fears that lifers and IPPs will miss out on parole

Only one in 16 prisoners takes part each year in courses designed to reduce their risk of reoffending. The number of “accredited programmes” completed in English and Welsh prisons has dropped steadily for the past decade. The decline has brought warnings that some prisoners may be stuck in custody because they cannot gain places on courses which they must complete to show the Parole Board they can be released safely.

In the year to March 2020 there were 5,068 completions of programmes in prisons, according to figures released last month by the Ministry of Justice. It marks a decline of 40 per cent from the year to March 2010, when 8,469 programmes were completed. The prison population remained steady over the period.

The figures include courses for general offending, sexual offending, violence and domestic violence. They exclude drug and alcohol programmes in jails, which have been handed over from the Prison Service to the NHS.

Over the same 10-year period the number of prisoners completing the Thinking Skills Programme, the most widely-used course, has declined from more than 5,000 a year to just over 2,000.

All figures relate to the pre-pandemic period. The number of prisoners taking part in programmes will be greatly reduced since March 2020, when face-to-face activities in jails were suspended due to concerns about virus transmission.

Evidence of a decline in the use of programmes will fuel a wider debate over whether they actually work in preventing reoffending. There are 21 accredited programmes approved for use in English and Welsh prisons by the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel (CSAAP), an expert body appointed by the Ministry of Justice which decides which courses would be of benefit. It has been criticised for secrecy as it does not disclose who its members are, what it discusses at its meetings or why it reaches its decisions.

In some cases, courses are approved before trials have been carried out to measure their impact on reoffending rates. In 2017 a flagship programme, the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), was withdrawn overnight. It later emerged that research had shown as early as 2012 that people who completed the programme were more likely to reoffend than those who had not taken part, but the findings were suppressed and the programme remained in use.

SOTP was replaced by two new courses, Kaizen and Horizon. But the latest figures show that fewer than one in 10 men jailed for sexual offences takes part each year in programmes designed to reduce their risk of reoffending. In 2019/20, out of 13,000 men serving sentences for sexual offences, only 1,154 started on sexual offending behaviour courses. With men jailed for sexual offences serving an average period in custody of two to three years, it means the majority will be released without ever having taken part in a programme.

Even at specialist prisons, participation rates are low. At HMP Littlehey, which holds 1,200 men convicted of sexual offences, only 81 started programmes in 2019 – just one in 15. The highest rate was at Whatton where one in five started programmes.

The Prison Service acknowledged the decline in completions. It said spending on programmes had remained stable over the past decade, but funding had been redirected from shorter courses like Thinking Skills into more in-depth courses for a smaller number of prisoners. A spokesperson said: “The effectiveness of these programmes should not be measured by overall completion numbers. We are ensuring those most at risk of reoffending get the support they need by targeting investment at longer, more intensive programmes.”

A breakdown of the headline figures was released in response to a Freedom of Information request from Donna Mooney of the campaign group UNGRIPP, which supports people still serving indefinite time in custody under now-abolished IPP sentences. IPP and life-sentenced prisoners need to complete programmes to show the Parole Board they are safe to release, but campaigners fear a shortage of places on courses means they are spending longer in custody than they need to.

Mooney, whose brother Tommy Nichol took his own life in prison after being unable to secure places on courses, said: “My brother died over five years ago and one of the main factors at play in his death was the fact he was denied access to the rehabilitation that was required in order for him to be released. Have any lessons been learned from my brothers death? My opinion is no.

“People serving an IPP sentence have always struggled to access these courses, through no fault of their own, and this is made even harder year on year, pushing them ever further past their tariff release date.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said IPP prisoners are prioritised for programmes, adding: “We continue to support those struggling to progress.

“Lack of clarity”

Comment by Graham Towl

“On the face of it, the latest official figures for the number of programmes carried out in prisons show a disappointing decline in the level of activity. But the statistics need to come with two health warnings.

Most immediately, the figures only go up to March 2020. The reported reduction in the numbers of ‘accredited’ programmes is surely now very much worse on the ground, with the advent of Covid-related measures in prisons from March 2020 onwards. The prediction must be that the next set of published numbers for ‘programme completions’ will be far below even the latest disappointing figures.

But more fundamentally, so little is known about these programmes that in one sense we simply don’t know if a reduced number of ‘completions’ is good or bad news in terms of the future risk of reoffending. The programmes industry should be made to get its house in order. For example, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the evidently still much-vaunted “accreditation panel” would operate with sufficient transparency that there would be publically-available minutes around decisions to “accredit” (or not to). Is there a publically-available list of members of this body, where members have the opportunity to share any conflicts of interest? That would be most welcome and reassuring in terms of good governance.

There remains a lack of clarity around what is different about the Horizon and Kaizen courses in comparison with the previous failed Sex Offender Treatment Programmes. Especially in view of past ethical and empirical limitations, it is surely wise to demonstrate more openness.

These latest figures measure the volume of work done, not its quality. When trying to interpret the significance of the declining numbers for future crime rates, it is perhaps worth remembering that the managerial malaise that got us where we are now was one that focussed upon “completions” at the expense of measures of effectiveness.

But what we do know is that reduced opportunities to participate in such programmes for prisoners may very well have real, and personally devastating, consequences for vulnerable groups such as lifers and those serving IPP sentences, if they are required to complete them but cannot access them.

It is interesting to note, within the figures, a reported shift with the NHS appearing to increasingly lead on more programmes in prisons. Just as prison healthcare moved from being an in-house service to the NHS, maybe it is time to consider a similar shift with “offending behaviour programmes” too?”

Graham Towl is Professor of Forensic Psychology at Durham University and former Chief Psychologist at the Ministry of Justice.

--oo00oo--

I notice that a Freedom of Information request made by Rob Allen on 7th June 2021 elicited a list of members and the following statement:-

2. The latest annual report on its work

The MoJ does not hold any information in the scope of this part of your request.

The Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice panel does not publish annual reports.

The last published Annual report was the 2010-11 Annual report. The Correctional Services Accreditation Panel ceased to be an Advisory Non-Departmental Public Body on 31 July 2008. While it continued to publish annual reports in the lifetime of that panel (2008-2011) there is no longer a business or legal requirement to do so and when the panel changed its name to the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice panel in 2012, no more reports were published.

The FOIA does not oblige a public authority to create information to answer a request if the requested information is not held. The duty is to only provide the recorded information held.

MoJ and the SOTP Fiasco

Last night's BBC Radio 4 File on 4 'Can sex offenders and violent criminals be rehabilitated in prison?'  made for grim listening and to me confirms all the worst aspects of the command and control HMPPS/MoJ culture that is steadily strangling the probation ideal and ethos. 

We've previously covered the appalling way researcher Kathryn Hopkins was treated by the MoJ and the saga provides yet more evidence as to why civil servants and politicians should not be influencing, let alone running, probation services or you end up with the sad sorry mess outlined by Danny Shaw in this radio documentary:-  

Sex offender: 'I've never had so many deviant thoughts'

In 2017, the government's flagship treatment scheme for people convicted in England and Wales of rape or child sexual abuse was scrapped after it was shown to raise the risk of reoffending. Two sex offenders have told BBC Radio 4's File on 4 programme what it was like to take part in the rehabilitation programme.

"Everything was discussed in minute detail. They had what was called the 'hot seat' and every prisoner that was in a group had to sit in the hot seat and they were bombarded - it was like an interrogation." These are Paul's experiences of group sessions on the discredited Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which ran from the early 1990s until 2017.

Paul has been convicted of numerous offences, including rape, and is serving a long jail sentence. Speaking to me from a prison pay-phone, he says he started the SOTP on three occasions - it was a cognitive behaviour therapy designed to teach offenders to think and act differently. But, the 60-year-old says, each time, he was removed from the course before the end because group facilitators thought he "wasn't learning anything".

"Being in group settings, discussing serious offences and some less serious offences - because these groups were mixed - actually made prisoners worse and normalised what prisoners were doing," he says. Rapists, murderers, child sex offenders and "flashers" were all placed together, says Paul. "People were learning from their mistakes - they were learning from other group members how to perhaps be better sex offenders without being caught."

Ministry of Justice (MoJ) research showed 10% of men who had completed the SOTP reoffended, compared with 8% of those who had not done the programme. The results were published five years after analyst Kathryn Hopkins first alerted the department the scheme might not be working.

Paul also claims some inmates were told to disclose the names of their victims as part of the process of setting out their offending history in graphic detail. "It was to physically humiliate you and break you - I could see no other purpose for it," he says.

Many of Paul's observations are shared by Dr Robert Forde, a retired forensic psychologist who used to work for the Home Office and is an expert on assessing risk. Dr Forde told File on 4: "One prisoner said to me, 'I hate doing this course because I've never had so many deviant sexual thoughts as I've had since I started because we're talking about sex offending all the time and actually I want to get away from all that.'"

Another prisoner, who had himself been a victim of sex abuse as a child, told him he had been asked to give details of what had happened to him in front of paedophiles who had became aroused as a result. Dr Forde said some prisoners on the SOTP courses would "play the system" in order to convince the Parole Board they were safe to be released.

He said one prisoner had told him: "You claim to have things like deviant thoughts about victims or indulge in deviant sexual practices and then after the course is finished and you're doing the post-course assessment, you then drop all these things and you just tell the truth." The inmate claimed this would then result in the prisoner being given a lower risk score by course assessors.

Former prisoner Peter, who has served two sentences for sexual offences against children and possessing indecent images, tells me the SOTP provided a false sense of security. "You come out thinking you're fixed," he says. "There's that feeling... because it's a treatment programme and that's what treatment does, doesn't it - fixes what's wrong?"

Now in his 50s, Peter had to do a "booster" course when he was first released. "You're going back over the offences, so you keep reliving this stuff that just isn't helpful," he says. "You're not going to forget what you've done and you know you've made victims... if you're going to be a useful member of society, you need to try and move your life forward."

During his second spell in jail, Peter completed one-to-one sessions as part of the Healthy Sex Programme, which he found far more beneficial because it focused less on his offending and more on steps to overcome his problems. He is now receiving support at the Corbett Centre, a groundbreaking project in Nottingham run by the Safer Living Foundation Charity. It provides a range of emotional help and practical support for about 30 sex offenders living in the community. "You're in an environment where people know what's happened," Peter says. "So you're not having to start your life with a lie... you can put your life back on track."

Although the Corbett Centre shows some promising early signs, it will be some years before it is known whether it reduces reoffending in the long term.

A number of Ministry of Justice initiatives are also unproven - the Healthy Sex Programme is currently being evaluated, while the two sex offender rehabilitation schemes that replaced the SOTP, Horizon and Kaizen, have yet to be tested.

The MoJ says it works "closely" with the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel in the design of programmes delivered in prison and on probation. The department says the panel, which has to approve such schemes before they can be used, is made up of "independent experts from academia and practice from across the world".

But two forensic psychiatrists, Penny Brown and Callum Ross, have been so alarmed by the failings in the SOTP programme they are calling for greater oversight of new forms of treatment. This week, the Lancet Psychiatry medical journal published a paper they have written.

"We want to get reassurance that government-funded policy research is subjected to the same requirements and high academic standards that are placed on everybody else and all other scientists," says Dr Brown. "The need to show that you're doing something shouldn't override the risk of actually causing harm."

--oo00oo--

Mention of the Corbett Centre led me to the following Guardian article from February this year which I find astonishing for a number of reasons. Firstly, it doesn't mention 'probation' once! Secondly, it pretty much outlines sound probation practice that used to be part and parcel of supervision during a period of licence and echoes the in-house SOTP work undertaken by Probation Trusts before the introduction of the accredited, but now discredited, one-size-fits-all SOTP programmes. 

Finally, it serves to remind me of the situation regarding the charity Circles of Support and Accountability - an organisation that HMPPS decided to stop supporting financially. I am genuinely confused as to why the MoJ decided to withdraw such a piddling amount of money from a widely respected organisation doing very worthwhile work? I'm even more puzzled because the Safer Living Foundation runs Circles in Nottingham and Derbyshire. Can anyone shed any light on the politics of this very strange situation?   

University launches scheme to rehabilitate sex offenders

Controversial project aims to cut crime rate by teaching skills like cooking and building a supportive social circle

Sex offenders will be given support to help find a job and make new friends under a pioneering scheme run by a university and backed by police. The initiative aims to integrate people back into society to prevent them committing further crimes.

Offenders will visit a centre, the first of its kind in the UK, where they will receive employment training – from management skills to writing CVs – as well as help with building a supportive social circle, finding new hobbies or learning basic skills such as cooking. The strategy’s advocates say that, while they realise it will be controversial, it will reduce reoffending rates. The aim is to work with up to 100 people in the first year.

“We want to make sure they won’t reoffend because they will have found a niche in society, a way of reintegrating,” said Professor Belinda Winder, head of the sexual offences, crime and misconduct research unit at Nottingham Trent University, which is piloting the scheme.

“It’s for people who are going to be rejected, who feel desperate, lonely, isolated, a vicious circle which can contribute to reoffending. We are going to break that vicious cycle, but it’s difficult to know if people are going to be able to stomach this.”

Although programmes already exist to help support convicted sex offenders, the Nottingham scheme, adopted by the Corbett Centre for Prisoner Reintegration, is said to be the world’s first holistic approach to fully integrating sex offenders back into society.

Last year the main sex offender treatment programme for England and Wales was scrapped by the Ministry of Justice after a report revealed it led to more reoffending. Researchers found that prisoners completing the programme – which was designed to challenge the behaviour of male sex offenders with psychological techniques to change their thinking – were more likely to commit further crimes. Reoffending rates for sex offenders are between 10 to 14%.

The centre itself will have police from the Nottinghamshire’s force on site at various times during the week so they can meet sex offenders on licence, a move that will help save time and resources tracking down their whereabouts. Nottinghamshire’s police and crime commissioner Paddy Tipping said: “This groundbreaking piece of work will hopefully set the new standard for post-sentence reintegration into the community. It’s absolutely logical.

“If we can rehabilitate offenders and support them as they return to live in the community, they will be safer and less likely to reoffend. This in turn means there will be fewer victims of sexual abuse and harm. It’s an ambitious project and I’m proud to be involved.” The centre will be housed at a university-owned building in the middle of the city. “We’re mindful of the difficulties of what we’re doing,” said Winder. “But remember that people are free to walk anywhere in the city and go, for instance, to Costa Coffee.”

The centre will be launched this week by Safer Living Foundation (SLF), a partnership between HMP Whatton in Nottinghamshire and the school of social sciences at Nottingham Trent University. Lynn Saunders, chair and co-founder of SLF and governor of HMP Whatton, said the centre was a “much needed resource”. Winder added: “We’re giving people somewhere to go to help them to build a better new life, to get the support they want rather than, for example, wandering around the train station.” She added that two other UK regions had already expressed interest in adopting the model.

Problem with Command and Control

This from Danny Shaw at the BBC highlights yet again the problems we have with the 'command and control' ethos at the MoJ running probation. Many seasoned practitioners will recall the days when work with sex offenders was 'tailored' to an individual and not a rigidly applied 'accredited' programme that was subsequently discredited:-   

MoJ used failed sex offender treatment 'unlawfully'

The Ministry of Justice acted "unlawfully" in allowing the Sex Offender Treatment Programme to continue for five years - despite initial research which suggested it wasn't working, a government analyst has said. 

Kathryn Hopkins said she presented research in 2012 which showed the SOTP made sex offenders more harmful, but the programme wasn't halted until 2017. Speaking to BBC News after bringing legal action in an employment tribunal, she estimated around 180 more crimes will be committed by sex offenders who were treated during the five years - compared with those who weren't.

The MoJ said "at no point" did it try to avoid publishing the findings of the research. The department commissioned Ms Hopkins, who was then a senior researcher in its analytics unit, to study the effects of the SOTP, which had been used in various formats since 1991. The scheme involved group sessions and cognitive behavioural therapy and was designed to challenge the behaviour of male sex offenders with psychological techniques to change their thinking.

Ms Hopkins said her initial results suggested prisoners who took part in the scheme were more likely to reoffend than those who did not. When the SOTP was eventually abandoned in 2017, the MoJ published a research report acknowledging that it was not working.

"The final report confirmed what the claimant {Ms Hopkins} had been saying all along, i.e. that there was a higher rate of reoffending by prisoners who had undertaken the SOTP," Employment Tribunal Judge Tamara Lewis declared. "We can understand the claimant's frustration that it took five years to publish a report on such an important matter of public policy," she said.

Ms Hopkins said the MoJ had "allowed people to continue attending the course" whilst knowing "it could be harmful". She indicated that victims and convicted perpetrators of sex attacks, who were told to complete SOTP, could sue the government if the crimes would otherwise not have taken place.

The MoJ explained the five-year gap between the original findings and the final report by saying that it had to check and revise the research that had been conducted. "Both internal and external experts who reviewed Ms Hopkins' research judged that it was not of sufficient quality and that the methodology needed to be changed to remove the risk of bias and inaccurate results," a spokesperson said. After the study confirmed the findings, the MoJ said it replaced the SOTP with two new programmes, Horizon and Kaizen.

Ms Hopkins suggested that, over an eight-year follow-up period, at least 178 more sexual offences would be committed by prisoners who'd been treated between 2012 and 2017 than by those who were not. The figure is likely to be an under-estimate, she said, because it did not take account of the increasing number of sex offenders beginning the SOTP in those five years compared with earlier years.

According to MoJ statistics, 2,861 prisoners started the scheme. The total also did not include sex offences that will not come to the attention of police, breaches of court orders and non-sexual offending.

The Employment Tribunal panel found that Ms Hopkins, who now works for HMRC, had been unfairly marked down in a performance review in 2014 because she'd raised concerns about the SOTP. She was given a 'must improve' rating which Judge Lewis said "caused her enormous distress" and prompted her to start a grievance procedure.

The judge said: "It appears to us to be disproportionate and therefore very surprising that the claimant was marked 'must improve'." However, the claim failed on a technicality because Ms Hopkins had waited too long to bring proceedings. She said it was important to bring the case to ensure that other government research isn't "sidelined" or "covered-up", as she had alleged hers was.

She said: "It questions the integrity of those analysts' work if they're not supported to be independent and there's a possibility that government researchers will be perceived as not being independent from now on," she said.

Some Green Shoots

This caught my eye and serves to remind me that with adequate staffing, insightful governance and the freedom and willingness to innovate, good things can happen and in some surprising places:-

Organic gardening helps inmates kick drug addiction

Physically and mentally, growing plants without chemicals has a transformative effect. Anyone who has spent time gardening knows the restorative effect it can have. There is something about dirt on one's hands, the pulling of weeds, and the creation of something beautiful and alive that draws people back, year after year.

So it's no wonder that gardening is being used to rehabilitate prison inmates battling drug addiction. One particular location, at HMP Rye Hill in England, has seen its Mandatory Drug Test failure rate go from 30 percent on average to zero in one year since implementing an organic gardening program. Food Tank reports on the program's stellar success, saying the HMP's horticultural program has

"improved self-esteem and self-control, better health and wellbeing, a shared community and improved communication among inmates who work toward a common goal, and behaviour changes inside and outside the prison."

There are numerous reasons for this, as outlined in a report commissioned by HMP. Gardening creates a space that is beautiful, peaceful, and conducive to reflection. It's a place where the inmates work at their own pace, with minimal presence of guards.

"Participants repeatedly write [in their diaries] about the pleasure, tranquillity and sense of freedom they feel as a result of working outdoors. Participants frequently reported feeling better for being outside and in touch with nature (even during the winter months)."

The physical activity involved in gardening leads to improved sleeping patterns, increased energy, and an overall sense of wellbeing, which translates to healthier lifestyle habits, such as quitting smoking and going to the gym more often. And as individuals struggling to free themselves from chemical dependencies, they value the philosophy behind organic cultivation.

The gardens give the inmates something to be proud of and to talk about when they meet family members. It builds a sense community within the inmates themselves, as all must work together for a common goal. Researchers reported seeing prisoners

"supporting each other in a myriad of ways, including supporting with specific tasks in the garden, making each other beverages, supporting with literacy and numeracy skills and also recognising when someone on the programme was having a difficult day offering emotional support."

HMP's sounds like a wonderful program that could be a model for many other prisons, mental health institutions, hospitals, schools, and other educational facilities around the world. It's living proof that we should never underestimate the power of the earth to heal, ground, and recalibrate us as humans.

--oo00oo--

About Rye Hill

HMP Rye Hill is situated in the village of Willougby, near Rugby, in Warwickshire. A PFI prison which opened in 2001, it is a category “B” training prison, acting as a national resource for sentenced male adults who have been convicted of a current or previous sex offence(s). The capacity of the prison is 625.

The sentence requirement for HMP Rye Hill is for prisoners who have been sentenced to over four years and have at least 12 months left to serve. No more than 15% of the population must be in denial of their offence. The philosophy of our prisons is to rehabilitate offenders and equip them to re-integrate into mainstream society on release. We seek to normalise prison conditions as far as possible and reflect life in the outside community. Our aim is to create an environment in which staff and prisoners feel safe, and causes of prison stress are minimised.

Central to our philosophy is the relationship between staff and prisoners. Our training and operational practices emphasise the need to treat prisoners with dignity and respect. G4S staff build positive and supportive relationships with prisoners in their care. We create a constructive regime through provision of suitable education and work programmes. We actively encourage prisoners to address the causes of their offending. This is achieved by the provision of a range of Offending Behaviour Programmes, active sentence planning procedures and by providing appropriate employment and training opportunities.

We provide an environment which is modelled on the terms, conditions, practices and standards both offered and expected by industrial employers. We give prisoners real work experience which reflects the ethics required in business. G4S provides opportunities for prisoners to gain national vocational qualifications that assist prisoners to find work on their release.

--oo00oo--

This from a G4S press statement 23rd October 2018:-

WHERE DEBATING MATTERS: BEYOND BARS AT HMP RYE HILL

Is space exploration a £15 billion benefit to the economy or a luxurious waste of time? This is just one of the topics that prisoners at HMP Rye Hill tackled at the inaugural Debating Matters ‘Beyond Bars’ competition. Debating Matters—described as the UK’s toughest debating competition—made its debut at HMP Rye Hill last month. In front of an audience of their fellow prisoners, the ‘Beyond Bars’ competition celebrates and rewards participants for constructive and well-thought out arguments, and the enthusiasm was palpable.

“When I started, I thought space exploration was great,” said Nick, a prisoner at HMP Rye Hill and participant in the competition. “But then I did some research and changed my opinion; now I think it is a waste of time and money. I know I can change your mind too.”

What is Debating Matters?

Debating Matters ‘Beyond Bars’ is an innovative and challenging debate competition aimed at engaging prisoners in rigorous and well researched public debate. It was launched by The Academy of Ideas in 2016 and aims to unlock the potential of inmates by promoting research, listening and communication skills, and encourages them to think about the world around them. It also promotes teamwork and “gives us (prisoners) the opportunity to see other people’s views,” according to Jason, another Debating Matters participant at Rye Hill. “It is proactive offender management,” he said. “It can help solve prison officer issues like violence because it helps us communicate in a more measured and useful way.”

Competition time

The competition followed a standard debating setup: teams of two face off on opposing sides of a statement—one in agreement and one against—where the winner is judged by whomever makes the most compelling argument. The teams at Rye Hill were put through their paces, facing tough subject matters including; accepting the risks of contact sports, filtering out fake news on social media and whether space exploration is a waste of time and money. The best two teams went through to the final to debate whether “monuments to controversial historical figures should remain.”

After the teams made their opening statements, the topics were opened to the audience—and it was obvious that they were prepared. During the debate, “space exploration is a waste of time and money,” the audience questioned everything from the impact that scaling back would have on employment, international relations and scientific research to whether the money saved from space exploration would be redirected to fund global issues, and the role of private companies in the future of space exploration.

“Debating Matters emphasises the importance of taking ideas seriously and presents a unique opportunity for prisoners to engage in creative problem-solving,” said Pete Small, Director of HMP Rye Hill. “It was great to see everyone get involved. I was impressed by all of the teams that participated in the competition; their dedication and enthusiasm just goes to show how important these kinds of events are.”

Three guest judges from all walks of life and professional backgrounds—including a senior lecturer, a writer and retired health professional—scrutinized and cross-examined the arguments. They praised the quality of the debates, the breadth and depth of knowledge, and teamwork that was displayed throughout the competition.

The grand final was a culmination of expectation and excitement, as the teams energetically commanded the debate; should we remove historical monuments because they are a physical rallying point for protests, or is it acceptable to effectively wipe out periods of history? Ultimately, the winners were crowned thanks to their “rigorous, ingenious and persuasive” argumentation.

Claire Fox, director of the Academy of Ideas, praised the quality and standard of the debates throughout the day. “It is the start of something,” she said. Jason and Nick agreed; they had already pitched several new topics for future debates to Pete Small earlier in the afternoon!

--oo00oo--

This from the Independent in December 2015:-

Rye Hill: Inside the prison changing the landscape for serious sex offenders

Woodwork and painting, lettuce growing and landscape gardening. These are not the first things that spring to mind when imagining life inside a sex offenders’ jail, yet you’ll find them at HMP Rye Hill. Run by the private security firm G4S, the Category B training prison, just outside Rugby, was transformed 18 months ago from a mixed-population prison to one solely for serious sex offenders.

More than 90 per cent of the 623 inmates are serving sentences of at least 10 years. And around 65 per cent are guilty of sex offences against children. Its population is set to rise, given that sex offenders are the fastest-growing part of the British prison population. With space for just two more inmates as things stand, a planning application has been made to extend Rye Hill enabling it to cater for more than 1,000 inmates.

The Independent was given a guided tour the day before government inspectors publish a report on Rye Hill after the first unannounced inspection since its transformation in summer 2014.

Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, said it was “a positive inspection” and that Rye Hill had “some real strengths”, such as its activities centre, its gardening projects and its offender management. One area for improvement was health care. More than 100 prisoners are aged 60 or older – the oldest is 86 – and some are now suffering from dementia, diabetes or other age-related illnesses. Six prisoners are terminally ill.

Given the nature of their offences (perhaps it’s of little surprise that 60 per cent of prisoners receive no visits from family or friends), many people will question whether they deserve improved conditions. Yet that is not the view of staff here, led by Richard Stedman – who at 35 is the UK’s youngest governor.

“We are fundamentally about reducing risk,” he says, a theme he returns to throughout our tour. “With a much older prisoner profile, you see a much more passive population, physically, but it is a population who are much more sophisticated and much more able to manipulate to condition and groom other prisoners.

“They will also try their best to manipulate staff. So we have had to completely rethink the way we train and encourage our staff to engage with prisoners, because that literally changed overnight [with the prison’s transformation].

The inspectors said they were concerned the prison was not sufficiently alert to the risk of prisoner-on-prisoner sexual grooming, something Mr Stedman acknowledges.

“When someone comes out of a cell with a black eye, it’s very obvious that someone has been assaulted. [Grooming] is a much more hidden risk and those behaviours and issues become visible over weeks, months and years, so that comes back to the relationship that staff have with the prisoners – and they are much more able to know what signs to look for.”

Inside the activities centre, older inmates and those with mental health issues are finishing their three-hour morning session. “Some people just come down here for the social aspect,” says Clare Witt, head of activities, “because otherwise retired prisoners would just be locked in their cells all the time. We have just eight people who are retired and don’t attend any work or education and that’s their choice. It’s not enforced.”

The landscape garden, where higher-risk prisoners on the substance-misuse residential unit spend up to six hours a day, has been built from scratch by the prisoners themselves – taking them away from any problems they might have on their wing. Mr Stedman says: “The value and impact that the garden makes on some of our most complex prisoners is an absolutely critical element of what we do.”

About a third of the inmates are still in denial over their crimes, which is one of the reasons only 59 have completed Rye Hill’s sex offenders’ treatment programme this year. The aim next year is to have 96 complete it. Louise Sharpe, the programme’s clinical lead, said the one-year course is aimed at inmates with a higher intellect and looks at what has made someone offend. “We would look at their sexual interests, relationships problems, how they feel about themselves and their lifestyle.”

Prisoners often arrive at Rye Hill with no trust in authority and no trust in what staff are trying to do. Re-engaging and rehabilitation is a slow process but time is not an issue – few people ever leave prison. They either die here at Rye Hill or move to a Category C jail.

Mr Stedman says: “What we do in prison isn’t just about locking people up and security. You have to combine that element with the work that is about change and creating that environment where people can change. And that doesn’t happen overnight.”

MoJ and Secrecy

As time goes by it will become increasingly apparent to more people why probation should never be part of the MoJ and disappear behind a wall of secrecy, subject to a stifling civil service command and control philosophy. The following ET case reported by Buzzfeed sheds some light on what the issues are:-   

An Academic Says She Was Bullied At The Ministry Of Justice After Revealing It Was Running A Programme That Made Sex Offenders More Likely To Reoffend

An academic whose research revealed that the Ministry of Justice’s treatment of sex offenders in prison might actually increase their chance of reoffending is suing the department. She says she was bullied out of her job after whistleblowing about the results. Dr Kathryn Hopkins worked as a researcher in the MoJ’s analytical services department. Her study of the controversial Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) suggested that five years on from release, prisoners who had been on the programme were more likely to commit a sexual offence again.

The SOTP was a six month group therapy course taken by thousands of prisoners serving sentences for rape, child abuse and other sexual offences from 1991 to 2017. The controversial scheme involved bringing offenders together in groups to discuss their crimes. 

Amongst those believed to have undergone the treatment programme are the black cab rapist John Worboys and several notorious paedophiles. Another alumnus of the SOTP course is Clive Sharp, who took the course after being convicted and jailed three times for sexual attacks including rape of an underage girl when he was 17. According to a report in the Mail on Sunday, he told his SOTP facilitator in the 1990s that he fantasised about tying up a woman, then raping and murdering her. When released in October 2012 he went on to do just that, sexually torturing, killing and dismembered a woman. He is now serving life with a minimum 37-year term.

Hopkins says she raised the alarm in early 2012 that it was not working – and indeed that her early findings suggested it increased reoffending and was a risk to public safety. In June 2012, an independent peer review recommended that the report could be published, subject to some changes. Instead of stopping the programme, the research was re-run in different ways over several years and eventually given to a different researcher to complete.

The hearing started at the Central Employment Tribunal in London on Monday and is expected to conclude next week. The MoJ had a solicitor and barrister appearing in court for them. Hopkins is making her case with no lawyer and began giving evidence on Tuesday. She argues that her career suffered after whistleblowing because she was taken off the project, given a critical performance review, overlooked for promotion, bullied by managers and was not named as an author on the final report.

The MoJ disputes her account. It says It had issues with her performance and that she was not listed as an author on the final report because it was a “complete reset and reconstruction and analysis of the data set” undertaken after she had been moved off the project.

It was not until January 2017 – almost five years after Hopkins raised her initial findings – that the MoJ stopped the SOTP. The MoJ argues this was because the research was more robust by this point. Despite multiple freedom of information requests which began in 2012, the final report was not published until June 2017, and that only happened five days after the report findings were published in the Mail on Sunday following a leak. The MoJ published the latest version of the research without naming Hopkins as an author.

In a witness statement to the court, she described the horrified reaction of managers and prison service officials when she called a meeting to break the news of the results in early 2012. “It was met with shock and anger - I was told that the results could not possibly be correct. I assured them that the methodology was robust, the datasets large, the follow-ups long, but this was not accepted. I pointed out that previous research in the area, upon which the claims of efficacy of the SOTP were based, were far inferior to the analysis I had undertaken, but I was not believed. I was told that the results must be wrong - but not given any indication as to why.”

The MoJ disputes her account of the meeting, arguing that she did not disclose her concerns that early and that the results were “insufficiently certain” at that stage for them to act. By the end of 2013, after another year of working on the project, Hopkins says she had run the evaluation again and discovered that increasing the sample size produced results that were stronger “and therefore even more alarming” than previously.

Hopkins says that she was made to re-run the study in different ways multiple times, including increasing the sample size, but the research was still not published. She told the court: “We kept on getting the same results, over and over and over again.” She says she blew the whistle multiple times to people within the MoJ and prison service, arguing that the SOTP should be stopped at least temporarily given the public safety implications of her findings.

In court documents she says: “I expressed my concern again about the public safety implications, and suggested that the SOTP should be stopped, even temporarily, until the research was finished. However, I was ignored.” Hopkins’ manager at the MoJ, whom she has accused of bullying her, argues in her witness statement that Hopkins was too emotionally involved in the research and “would just re-write the same analysis without undertaking full quality assurance”.

In court documents the manager says she considered “the problem was competence on [Hopkins’] part, as she did not appear to understand or be able to act on my and others’ concerns and/or a refusal to consider any other point of view except her own.” The manager said the department delayed publication because of quality concerns. “Publishing something that I still had major concerns about was going to damage the reputation of the department and may have an unwarranted negative impact on operational practice,” she said in a statement.

The MoJ argues that the need for extra scrutiny and to re-run the data was because of the seriousness of the national and international implications of the subject. It says they had concerns about the robustness of the methodology and that the delays were to make sure the report was of the best quality. However, the conclusions of the final study are similar to Hopkins’ initial findings. Hopkins’ initial report found that 7.9% of offenders who had attended the SOTP sexually re-offended, compared with 4.3% of untreated offenders. When the research was finally concluded, officially under a different author using slightly different methodology and a longer time span, the results showed a similar trend.

The final study said that 10% of sex offenders who went on the course committed at least one sexual re-offence (excluding breach) compared with 8.0% of matched comparison offenders who did not. The difference was even more marked for child sex offenders, with 4.4% of those on the course reoffending, compared to 2.9% of the comparison group.

Hopkins was told not to discuss the research findings and in December 2013 was told to respond to an FOI withholding the report, as it was 'about to be published'. She recalled: “I was not happy to do this, as I knew that there were no plans to publish the report, and felt that I had been asked to breach the Civil Service Code”. Hopkins argues that it was “common practice to make false statements in response to FOI requests,” citing revelations by BuzzFeed News last year over the failure to release a full report into unrepresented defendants under FOI. The Ministry of Justice disputes this.

In March 2014 Hopkins emailed a long complaint about the public protection issues associated with the SOTP to managers, alleging a cover-up by the MoJ. She complained about being asked to run and re-run analysis that always came up with the same results and said that her professional expertise was being ignored. She pleaded to have the report sent for independent peer review.

One manager said that they were unable to support the report’s publication in 2014 because “I and others both within and outside the Directorate could not be confident [it] was robust, as it had not addressed all issues raised through quality assurance processes.”

In December 2014 she was told her performance was “must improve”. Hopkins argues this was because of her whistleblowing and the pressure she was putting on the department to publish. However, in court papers her managers argue “there was evidence to support that her quality of work was inconsistent and had a higher volume of errors than was expected, and that she needed to demonstrate better collaborative working.”

Hopkins worked for the MoJ from 2007 until September 2016, when she moved to HMRC. The final paper was published on 30 June 2017.

So, Does It Work Or Not?

There's always been a bit of a mystery as to exactly what 'works' in relation to encouraging offenders to change their behaviour and many experienced probation staff were sceptical of 'one size fits all' approaches introduced some years ago and that had to be delivered in extremely proscribed fashion. I see Danny Shaw at the BBC reported yesterday on a recent report from Transform Justice:-

Offender rehabilitation schemes 'not tested'

More than 118,000 offenders have taken part in rehabilitation programmes that have yet to be fully tested to see if they work, BBC News has learned. Courses for sex offenders and domestic abusers are among those which haven't been subject to an "outcome evaluation".

The charity Transform Justice, which compiled the data, said it meant they "have no idea" if the programmes have a positive or negative impact. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said although it aimed to conduct evaluations to an "academic standard" it could take years to develop a "robust data sample".

According to MoJ figures supplied to Transform Justice, 25 offender behaviour programmes currently run by HM Prison and Probation Service have not had an outcome evaluation. The evaluation consists of a research study which investigates the impact of an intervention - whether it worked and, if it did, how well it worked.

Between 2010 and 2018, 16,434 prisoners in England and Wales began non-evaluated courses and 101,662 offenders serving community sentences started such programmes between 2009/10 and 2016/17. In custody, the non-evaluated programme most commonly used was RESOLVE, a cognitive-behavioural intervention that aims to reduce violence, which was started by 7,444 inmates.

The two community-based schemes with most participants were Building Better Relationships, for male domestic violence perpetrators (15,090), and the Thinking Skills Programme, which helps offenders set goals and make plans without committing crimes (42,215). In addition, more than 20,000 sex offenders - in jail or on community orders - began courses which hadn't been fully evaluated.

Peter Neyroud, a former chief constable and an independent member of the MoJ's Data, Evidence and Science Board, said he was "concerned" about the findings and wanted them to be addressed. "You would have expected that every significant programme that the Ministry of Justice is funding and recommending out for delivery would have a clear basis in evidence, and would be tracked to make sure that it's actually matching the outcomes you'd expect - and I can't see from the evidence I've seen here that this is happening," he told BBC News.

In March 2017, the MoJ scrapped its main sex offender treatment scheme (SOTP) after research found that prisoners completing the programme were slightly more likely to offend than a control group.

Penelope Gibbs, a former magistrate who set up Transform Justice, said the "scandal" of SOTP - which had initially been devised in 1992 - must not be allowed to happen again. "There could be more disasters like the Sex Offender Treatment Programme but we just don't know," she said.

A number of courses, run by the Prison and Probation Service or outside agencies, have been evaluated but the MoJ accepted that for some programmes, with only a small number of participants, it could take five years to find out if they've had any impact. A spokesman said: "The effectiveness of these types of programmes, many of which are used successfully around the world, is constantly assessed on the ground and subject to rigorous academic-standard evaluation when there is sufficient data."

The department added that offending behaviour schemes were approved by a group of "independent, international experts" - the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel.

But Mr Neyroud, who lectures in criminology at the University of Cambridge, questioned whether the accreditation panel had sufficient information on which to base its decisions. "If as it seems the word 'accreditation' doesn't take in that this programme has got a clear evidence base and secondly that we've clearly tracked the outcomes and it's meeting those outcomes, it's good value and the public are being kept safe with it... then it simply isn't good enough," he said.

--oo00oo--

Rehabilitation programmes – do we know whether they work?

Anything which helps those who commit crimes change their behaviour has to be a good thing. For many years the rehabilitative efforts of prison and probation have been focused on behaviour changing courses or interventions. Evidence is amassed and analysed as to how one or the other programme seems to be successful in reducing reoffending. Programmes provide an easy way of “measuring” whether those who have committed crime are on the path to turning their lives around and of monitoring the performance of organisations (such as CRCs) tasked with fostering rehabilitation.

Last year Transform Justice published a report on domestic abuse and how we could reduce it. Perpetrator programmes are part of the answer but its not clear they all work equally well. We asked for the evidence that the programmes delivered in prisons and for those on probation worked and were surprised when none was forthcoming. No outcome evaluations had been done on the programmes running now (the main one has been running for five years) – the government is scoping how they might evaluate them. All the main HMPPS programmes are accredited – but all this means is that a panel of experts has said that the programme’s design is sound.

The news that the government does not know whether its own domestic abuse programmes work hardly caused a ripple. But I was disturbed, particularly since excellent out of court programmes are frowned on. I put in a freedom of information request to find out what other prisons and probation programmes were not (outcome) evaluated and the results were even more disturbing – most programmes that are running, and many that no longer run have no outcome evaluations. This means we have no idea whether they work or not. We calculate that 118,096 people have started prison and probation programmes which do not have impact evaluations.

It is really surprising that the government has not sought to find out whether these programmes work. A few years ago they had a bad experience. In 2017 they found out that the programme they had been running since 1992 to help prisoners reduce their likelihood of committing sex offences in fact had the opposite effect – doing the programme increased the chance that someone would offend again on leaving prison. The sex offender treatment programme had in fact been evaluated in 2003 – then it appeared to have no effect in reducing sex offending but did reduce “the overall combined sexual and violent reconviction rate”. But the problem with programmes is that they can work in different ways in different circumstances. Trainers may deviate from the original programme, or it maybe delivered to a different cohort. Anyway, the Sex Offender Treatment Programme was running another decade before they decided to run a new evaluation. When this showed such negative results, they quietly axed the programme and the fiasco was only revealed through Frances Crook of the Howard League and journalist David Rose.

The problem with not evaluating programmes is not just that we don’t know if they work (or worse – if they are making people more likely to re-offend) but that we are forcing people to do these programmes and punishing non-completion. Those in prison applying for parole have to complete certain programmes to be eligible for release and there are many prisoners, particularly those on IPP sentences, who have spent extra years in prison mainly because they have not completed programmes. People are ordered to go on programmes as part of community sentences. If they don’t complete them, they can be prosecuted for breach and punished with imprisonment. It seems grossly unfair that we should deprive people of their liberty for failing to do courses which may or may not work.

Plenty of drugs and interventions used by the health service have a shaky evidence base. If they go wrong they can do people great harm. The same is true of programmes prisoners are pressurised to go on. Those who have committed crimes want support to turn over a new leaf. But we let them down if we make them do courses and never seek to find out whether they help or hinder rehabilitation.

NB In our spreadsheets etc we are referring specifically to outcome/impact evaluations not process evaluations – the latter are not designed to assess whether programmes have an impact.

Pick of the Week 42

Just prepare yourself for some harsh comments from those professionals who read this blog. I got them in bucket loads when I did a guest post last year. What got me most about it was the sheer refusal to recognise that my experiences of their "services" might be 100% genuine and the points I made therefore legitimate.

I had 5 probation officers on the outside so the revolving door of them isn't exactly unusual. What probation fails to realise by doing this is that it is so counterproductive to building up any kind of working relationship/trust etc which will definitely have a knock on effect. Then there's the worrying quality of those probation hires. Like prison officers, far too many of them should not be in the job because they are only there because they want to exercise power over people.

Being on licence is, in many ways, infinitely more difficult than being in prison. This is because you live in constant fear of being recalled even if you haven't actually done anything to warrant recall. I clearly remember my last PO threatening to recall me for allegedly breaching a licence condition that she'd actually written, but had completely misinterpreted what it actually said. In other words, I hadn't actually breached the condition, she was the one who tried to make it say something it didn't. One formal complaint to the head of the CRC later and she didn't try that one again.

The best our relationship got was a sort of armed truce. I thoroughly object to people holding me to account who then trample all over my legal rights and fail to do their job properly because that's just hypocritical. There are Probation Instructions, Data Protection etc all of which are useful tools to hold PO's to account so use them if they fail to provide the service they are legally obligated to.

It's also very lonely on licence because you have no idea who may turn on you or who probation may find unsuitable company for you to be hanging out with, so you just tend to avoid people. Unfortunately by the time you're off licence you've pretty much forgotten how to have a social life and the habits under which you live life while on licence stick for quite some time thereafter. And you will still feel your heart jump every time you hear a police siren even if you've done zero to warrant getting arrested. It's not fun.

You can be the most perfect human on the planet and some dipshit PO will still try to find a reason to recall you. I'm a firm believer in that there should be no recall unless you commit another crime and get charged. Any other recall seems to be covering the PO's back on the off chance you may or may not do something. Madness.

You also can't expect any help at all from probation. The lot in my area are beyond useless. They don't even refer people coming out of prison to the local homeless team any more. Everything is just a tick box exercise done over the phone these days. You have to seek out your own help from your local area. There are some charities and groups set up by ex offenders that can help point you to the right places in your area and provide support so seek them out. I wish you well whilst on licence and don't give up. It's tough and lonely but you can get through it.

*****
"dipshit PO" does sound a bit harsh so how about ''not all those that have made a mistake are thick, some, maybe many are going to be more intelligent than you, more articulate (like this chap) more qualified, higher IQ, have a degree, have a better degree, have a higher degree, have two or 3 degrees, maybe a PhD, so be more formally qualified and more intelligent than you will be or ever be with your crappy diploma or worthless social work degree'' or perhaps "dipshit PO" could be accurate after all for this fella. Not all POs are bad of course but I have yet to be impressed frankly. You need a certain higher level of social interpersonality skills.

*****
Good stuff that commands consideration & respect & my thanks go to the Guest, the poster & JB for giving the blogspace. Important views that must be heeded are aired today.

In my last role I requested the recall of numerous cases. On some occasions, after I initially felt it was appropriate due to a set of specific circumstances, the preparation of evidence for management & NOMS' staff made me reconsider & withdraw the request. On those occasions the laborious procedures & paperwork were, dare I say it, "useful". But I never found recall requests an 'easy' process in any respect. I had to justify removing someones liberty, returning them to a prison environment, unravelling a working relationship, undermining stability...

I'd like to think that all of my recall requests that resulted in a return to prison were appropriate, proportionate & necessary; even in the knowledge that three of the numerous people I requested recall for (over several years' in that role) never made it to re-release.

*****
Thanks for your interesting blog and insight into your experience. Unfortunately the problems in our society run deep and offenders are an easy group to blame for all our ills. As a PO I really struggle with the sometimes overwhelming barriers especially for those convicted of sex offences to be allowed to put the past behind and move on.

*****
Articulating these sympathies is one thing and the self statements feeling sorry for themselves. True there are some very odd PO staff who get things disastrously wrong and there are many different types of qualified entrants to the work. The CRCs are a waste of time and cannot be called probation and the multi officer experience is not uncommon. However, ask your selves what of the victims of your awful crime? Selfish personal gratifications aired no sympathy when whatever you were convicted for came to book. No repeal for the victims, no consideration of their needs and although these blogs trigger debate, you don't have a voice before the victims of your type of behaviour. You paid no regard and yet what do really expect?

*****
Writing a guest blog is courageous. Your thoughts and feelings are presented and you open yourself to critique which is an anxiety provoking place to be for many, including myself. I think there are a range of different perspectives which would challenge some aspects of what you have written. However, your perspective is valuable and it highlights many important issues. I applaud your effort. Don't let the boo boys and girls get you down but be open minded to comment. For me it highlights the importance of quality Probation (and Prison) services and thoughtful, well trained professionals who can engage successfully with people such as yourself and others. These are after all complex and emotive matters.

*****
A touch too much support for an offender in SOTP when no one has any clue on the detail of the offence. Sexual Violence Media material or the usual far worse stories. Need some balance here. All this liberal heart pouring without a clue on dangerousness level. Exactly the sort of thing that opens the profession up to critics.

*****
Returning to today's guest blog, it seems that there has been, and probably continues to be, widespread damage as a consequence of SOTP. It could be construed that today's Guest felt SOTP contributed to their feelings of despair: "Towards the end of my participation in SOTP... I reached a point where I felt the only good that could come of my life is through taking my life..." I don't know if that's what was meant, or if it was merely a coincidence of timescales?

However, while Probation has achieved many positives over the years in addressing offending behaviours, it has also - in my view - strayed well beyond the boundaries of its professional abilities when devising & delivering pseudo-therapeutic work. Once again I would lay these charges at the door of interfering career politicians and the ambitious hierarchy in NOMS, who were determined to quantify probation work in order to 'prove' this or that - OASys, SARA, RM2000, SOTP...

The SOTP delivered here has proven to be, at best, ineffectual and at worst, to exacerbate sexual offending. But the interventions of Lucy Faithfull, NSPCC and other specialist agencies have proved more effective. Rather than try to photocopy those interventions, why not leave it to the experts? Similarly with Personality Disorder issues; specialist agencies identifying, diagnosing & treating? Yes. Half-baked probation programmes delivered by people who have had one day's tutor-training from someone who's had one day's train-the trainer training? No. Such self-important amateur fiddling & experimentation is disrespectful, dangerous and has most likely contributed to making matters worse for everyone.

*****
Can I thanks the Guest Blogger for this piece. As someone who has recently left the NPS I recognised alot of what he has written. Being a Probation Officer is a curiously split role. On the one hand (most) Probation Officers come into the job wanting to help the clients towards happier and better lives. On the other hand we have the power to recall them based often on judgement calls which are often no more than very cautious but defensible positions for the MoJ and senior manager masters. To get it right takes wisdom, good judgement and a great deal of ethical practice, as well as an attitude that will occasionally stick two fingers up to the people who employ us.

I think people on licence have an understandable but maybe irrational fear of recall. Anyone serving a sentence in a local prison will see dozens returned on recall and fear the worst for their own releases. But as someone who has worked with those recall cases in a local prison, it was surprising how few were spuriously recalled. But if you are on a wing with them they will tell everyone there that they were recalled for no legitimate reason. "I was only ten minutes late for my curfew" is often, when you get the reports, actually something like "after assaulting a local student and jumping from his bedroom window I had to limp to the hostel and so was ten minutes late for curfew. I don't know why I was bleeding from my head, and just because I refused a drug test I don't why the staff thought I was being verbally aggressive and threatening. I'd only had ten pints and three lines." I must say, I liked virtually all the people I supervised, even those who were the most challenging.

*****
Well done for writing the guest blog, a valuable insight into how you feel about this stuff.
Unfortunately those that defend our UK CRCs don't seem to be able to have the ability to allow the other (the user) to see beyond the confines of their own rather limited views and capabilities. Sure other countries are way ahead in terms of humanity and Norway surely has to be the best. Sending people to hell holes is not in any way going to induce any kind of rehabilitation. Well done again.

*****
Now that NPS London have been empowered to process 3000 (thousand) un-enforced Community Payback Orders on behalf of MTCNovo who knows what that will lead to? This is of course London only. Will the rest of NPS in the regions follow? If so, one can only speculate as to the implications!

*****
Don't quite understand the 3,000 un-enforced MTC UPW orders comment, unless it is referring to the practice in London by PP's not to routinely extend stand alone UPW orders at time of breach, or production on warrant and breach and therefore making the orders unenforceable before the user could possibly be expected to compete.

The sentencing of working service users to long UPW orders without reference to their ability to be able to complete orders, the ridiculous number of closed projects, lack of supervisor cover, the appalling situation where users had absolutely no means of contacting their UPW officers (and even if they could they'd find they were "Ghosts"), PO's spending between 45 and 96 minutes trying to get through to a Control Centre on behalf of their service users- that's if they did not lose the will to live. Or simply the fact that MTC Novo have succeeded in surpassing even the asset stripping, staff sacking super dooper Serco in spectacularly stuffing up the Service.

*****

London traditionally never extended their operating periods for UPW, situation snowballed. Remember telling Helga Swidenbank more than a year ago that the Courts were losing confidence in UPW and OM's were embarrassed extending orders again and again. Oh and forgot another reason for the large numbers, Service users re-offending and Courts sentencing without report, without reference to an up to date MG16 and no Court Officer available.... here's another 60 hours UPW - even though they have 199/200 from 6 months back to do and have never received a warning letter, let alone had enforcement commenced. Or the short custodial sentences that mean they are unable to attend and have to pick up where they left off on release. No one notices because Delius profile number 3 has been set up. The split has meant that we are all working in the dark with no contact with the "other side".

*****

"The only way that I can make sense of, that stands a chance of working, is by establishing a professional rapport and relationship, engaging the individual motivationally, and then, based on thorough and ongoing assessment, collaborative work toward agreed goals. That means a one-to-one relationship with time to be meaningful."

The trouble is the current model sees the practitioner/service user relationship as completely irrelevant to the process. Most supervisees have numerous outside probation officers throughout their sentence and licence which makes it virtually impossible to establish trust and rapport and a good working relationship that just might enable the service user to turn their life around.

Add in the fact that you learn very quickly as a supervisee (under the current regime) to never, ever, ever tell your PO the truth about anything because that will simply get you recalled because of perceived risk, even when there isn't actually any actual raising of risk. And even if you do need help with something, you're never going to get it, so there's no point in even asking, so your situation can get a lot worse because there's zero help and support.

If Sweden can get things right (see Erwin James' latest piece in the Guardian about the Swedish system) and other countries can do a much better job than the UK can at less cost overall even if there may be greater cost up front, one has to wonder why UK politicians are so resistant to doing the right thing that will benefit society much more in both short and long term than the current disastrous mess.

*****
Because it's about the career of the politician, not for the good of society. Demonising those who commit offences is easy pickings for the ambitious MP; planning a long-term strategy that is efficacious & beneficial to society as a whole, e.g. Bevan's NHS, requires a visionary, not the kwikfix of a self-serving psychopath.

*****
In a similar vein, i.e. justice on a hiding to nothing as a result of rank stupidity by the NOMS' self-designated 'elite': Who can remember those days of yore when Probation Areas retained experienced criminal lawyers to prepare & prosecute breaches? This was in the dark ages? Then someone decided that was shit and had the bright idea of getting untrained probation staff to prepare & present their own breaches... and as if by magic the number of contested breaches was manifold, as the number of breaches determined 'not proved' escalated from 'very few' to 'quite a lot'.

Also, remember those pre-historic days when there were Probation Officers based in prisons and they prepared the Parole Reports, and even compiled the full Prison Dossier for submission to the Parole Board? Oh, and then someone thought that was shit as well, and had another bright idea: removing the prison-based POs and introducing warm & fluffy Oral Hearings where externally-based probation staff (qualified and unqualified) - often unable to have any previous contact other than via a pisspoor videolink - were pitted against battle-hardened defence barristers & expert witnesses in an adversarial setting with (more often than not) a Judge chairing the Oral Hearing.

Q: So who is more likely to be able to impress a Judge and win a legal argument in an Oral Hearing? NB: it often didn't help that the Prison Officer at the Oral Hearing simply wanted Prisoner 1234 to be released as they were causing hell on the wing. I don't know, those bloomin' dinosaurs and their old fashioned ways. Pah!!

*****
Crispin Blunt has just been interviewed on Sky news and said...He's spoken to some CRCs in preparation of the interview and been assured that caseloads are pretty much the same as they were prior to the split with probation staff managing caseloads of between 30 and 50. He doesn't recognise reports of probation officers having to manage caseloads of up to 200. Someones not telling the truth.

*****
To be fair to Crispy Runt, he spoke to the CRCs themselves and it is not surprising that they tried to polish that particular turd. They have been trying to do so since day one.

*****
As a PSO my case load is currently 84 which is unworkable.

*****
Victim issues - here's hoping someone at MoJ, Parole Board & office of Victims Commissioner reads this blog.

1. It is simply not appropriate to use probation staff - those who supervise caseloads, cover court duties or work within offices where perpetrators attend for supervision - to act as Victim Liaison Officers.
2. The VLO role should be independent under the gaze of the Victims Commissioner & located within local Police & Crime Commissioners' offices. This would release probation staff to undertake probation duties, and removes them from the risk of conflict of interest, intentional or unintentional bias, or accidental disclosure.
3. The Parole Board should be enabled to commission truly independent professional assessments, e.g. medical reports, psychological assessments. And independent should mean wholly independent, not someone in the employ of the HMPPS or associated with a particular Chambers or law firm.
4. The definition of an eligible 'victim' needs to be clarified.

*****
Please get your facts right before you give advice. To be clear, Victim liaison officers DO NOT see offenders, they have a separate database which is exclusive to VLO staff, they sit in field team offices to give advice and information to Offender Managers, there are no paper files and victim details are protected. VLOs need to access offender information and prison systems so absolutely need to remain in the National Probation Service employ.

*****

The VLO remit is professionally delivered under a national job description the same as PO or any other NPS post. The job is evaluated and graded. The job is specific and does not merge into other roles, the boundaries are not flexible. VLOs never supervise offenders. Conflict of interest is not possible. It is a demanding, professional role which is sometimes dismissed by the arrogant or uninformed. There is a piece of legislation called The Victims Charter and it clearly defines the role of the Victim Liaison Officer in the judicial process.

*****

Falconer refers to the 'relentlessly unfair incarceration under IPP', asserting that many of those safe to release are still in prison, but when an IPP is released, he attacks the Worboy's one as unsafe. I trust the Parole Board more than any politician to reach dispassionate release decisions, a power that once belonged to politicians. Falconer has enough legitimate targets to hit without undermining the Parole Board and jumping on a populist bandwagon about the release of a notorious prisoner.

*****
Yesterday after watching the 9am lead story on sky about probation I thought it would be pretty informative to the public. It was superceded by the justice committee and the Parole Board, Worboys and then Venables in the afternoon. The media, which is really the vehicle that informs public opinion decisions decides what's important. But shouldn't we be more open minded? More challenging of our own opinions? Realise that we are being fed vote winning dogma?

I think Nick Hardwick gave a really good performance yesterday. The worst cases are not always the cases that attract the media's attention. People go to university and dedicate their lives to a cause to serve society. Get your votes somewhere else politicians, preferably from areas that you know something about.

*****
I think you have hit the nail on the head. When I started in Probation, it was essentially left alone by politicians but Michael Howard approached it as would a Daily Mail reader and stared interfering with the approaches being taken. Then Boateng came on board with his Community Rehabilitation and Punishment Orders (CRAPOs - remember them? (actually they never existed)) and it was downhill from there. Since then, the HO, NOMS, MoJ, HMPPS have continued to fool around using ill-informed 'experts', dodgy research, amateurs and 'people who have hunches'. Of course, you are right in saying that the politicians can never admit that they are wrong even if it is blatantly obvious that this is the case. This can be opened up to include the NHS, Armed Forces, Housing etc etc. Add Brexit and Trump and I remain convinced that we are looking at the collapse of the West. In 100 years, the UK will be a tiny outpost of civilisation, much liked the Maldives.

*****
Like Carillon before their demise, Interserve have issued two profit warnings they however have been given till March by the banks to see if they will breach their covenants - I've got to say it's been very quiet on the Interserve need front! Some would say no news is good news however call me cynical! It will be interesting for those of us who are unfortunate enough to work within an Interserve owned CRC to see what further savings they are going to make as part of their "fit for growth" model. 

They are making massive changes to UPW, come April we will no longer have stand alone unpaid work officers in offices as all of this will be done remotely (I think 56 staff have been turned into 14) that will be based in one of intended performance service centres (Cunard in Liverpool) - not sure how this staff are going to cope with court appearances for contested breaches along with the massive amount of cases they will be dealing with - apparently this approach is going to improve unpaid work targets? 

Unpaid work staff are now expected to become generic case mangers, a few have been given "office manager " type roles (previously made redundant so they've changed the job title!). 4 unpaid work mangers are being reduced to 2 - what's next who knows watch this space - oh we also had an agreement with NPS that we take back to court all those orders with outstanding Unpaid work hours or those that were approaching 9/12 mths - they set aside specific cost for us - I think there was around 500 cases - unpaid work or should I say SL10 is a massive target as it means money!

*****
I feel for the inspectors. They have to walk a fine line between telling it as it is, appeasing the tabloids and ministers. Trouble is this leads to the situation being drastically watered down. Probation simply isn't fit for purpose at present which is doing everyone - supervisee, PO and the public a huge disservice. Everyone I know who has been on licence or is still on licence has had multiple probation officers over the course of their sentence and licence. There is no way anyone can build a good working relationship with a service user if they are here today and someone else is there tomorrow. Consistency and trust are key.

Supervising people by telephone, unless you're 100% sure that they aren't going to slip back into bad habits or as is clearly widespread as has been revealed recently - innocent of what they were imprisoned for so are extremely unlikely to commit a crime, is asking for trouble. At the very least the PO/supervisee relationship needs to be built on trust that both sides are going to behave themselves and abide by the law (and yes there are an awful lot of PO's playing fast and loose with their legal obligations under the law or who simply don't understand their legal obligations and can't be bothered to educate themselves on them. You can't seriously expect a supervisee to abide by the law if you're setting a bad example by not adhering to the law).

Instead of a sticking plaster which is probably what will happen, if anything, this is an excellent opportunity to redesign the service from the ground up to make it fit for purpose now and in the long run.

*****
The problem is that you last sentence was the rhetoric that surrounded TR. Look where that got us. For me, the problems are simple. An overemphasis on punishment not rehabilitation. An over reliance on IT and recording. Excessive caseloads and few opportunities to build relationships with offenders and to offer the practical and emotional assistance required. The value of Probation is and always has been the relationship between the practitioner and the offender. Until that relationship is put at the centre of the operating model, it will be all hot air.

*****
"in many CRCs, the case management itself is insufficient to enable good enforcement decisions. Instead, poor supervision is more likely to lead to reoffending and, for some, another round of imprisonment." This can only be read as "people are going to prison because of crap supervision by CRCs"? A powerful statement.

*****
"People on licence are more likely to be supervised by higher grade staff" - Really!! Not in my experience, it really doesn't work like that unless there is child protection. Those licence cases would sit with any member of staff regardless of experience - recalls have to be endorsed by a line manager and the manager above them. However, all of that said, you have to know when to go to a manager to discuss a potential recall and as most of us know, some case managers are being left inexperienced to handle high case loads.

*****
Privatising probation was only one part of Graylings Rehabilitation Revolution. He said it would work because it came in conjunction with engagement with the third sector, resettlement prisons, and TTG. None of that has happened, and without the whole package there is no Rehabilitation Revolution, and CRCs remain as the only part of a botched and broken ideologically driven system.

*****
Well, well what a surprise, pretty meaningless of course. I see this as tokenist fodder to make it look like there is some sort of monitoring going on when you and I know its not the case. The only outcome will be to waste more money on even more poor service. How the hell can you have a proper insight if you are not talking to the very people who use the service? Yeah lets ignore them that's a good idea. The very people who know whats going on.

If you come from the standpoint that everyone who has committed an offence must be totally untrustworthy and not to be believed at all under any circumstances, then you will learn sweet FA. Finding excuses to breach someone or winding them up until they break is NOT proper enforcement. 'Dame' Stacey needs to talk to the service users to find out what the real issues are, one of which is very poor, low quality POs in CRCs. They can cause quite a lot of damage with their mishandling and more contact with them only serves to allow them to cause even more. They are especially a waste of time (and space). Add into that very poor courses with very poor presenters where people are lumped in to make a larger invoice, spells tick boxing roller-coaster. Yep just keep on ignoring the service users, that's the solution!

*****
Why are the CRCs 'overstretched'? This judgement lets them off the hook. I don't recall thematics on probation pre-TR ever highlighting lack of resources – even during the austerity years - as being a fundamental issue – yet the first recommendation in the report tells the government to ensure that probation is sufficiently resourced. 

Did the CRCs overstretch themselves in cutting staff numbers and dispensing with many experienced practitioners? Are they overstretched because their operating models are not fit for purpose? 'Poor performance' is becoming synonymous with CRC operations. Two of the recommendations tell the NPS and CRCs to 'jointly develop' partnerships and services - this points to the necessity of integration. 

As any child will tell you, you cannot put Humpty Dumpty back together. A public-private partnership will never work in probation. As it seems doubtful that any government would ever trust the private sector to run the NPS, the only way out of this mess is to return the CRCs to public ownership. It's been tried before and whilst not always perfect, probation was one of the best performing public services that enjoyed the trust and confidence of the judiciary.

*****
"I don't want to pay for a service, I want to pay for results". When asked about the evidence base for the TR revolution, preferred to rely on "Common sense." Stated that the Private sector was best placed to shape the necessary changes to bring about the revolution. Claimed he had achieved what various Justice Ministers had been trying to achieve over the last 30 years, namely support for people on release from short term custodial sentences. Claimed the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors would revitalise through innovation, creativity and efficient use of taxpayers money the hitherto unacceptable and stale performance on rates of reoffending. The only box I am ticking, several years later, is that a revolution has been enacted.

*****
On the face if it, if the government, to celebrate the end of austerity, gave everyone in the UK a chocolate cream cake, it would be seen as a really great goodwill gesture. But for those with diabetes, gluten intolerance or nut allergies, it could be very harmful if not fatal. But that's exactly what they've done by bringing those sentenced to 12mths and under into probation supervision.

I'd like to ask those who shout about how great it is that 40,000 short term sentencees are now subject to supervision  do you really think it's done more good then harm? I suggest that those 40,000 are mostly problematic offenders and their offending behaviour is rooted in alcohol and drug addictions and mental health and social problems. With the best will in the world, probation services are not the agency best suited to deal with those problems. With redundancies, short staffing and a high dependency on agency staff in CRCs it's unlikely that offenders with particular offending patterns will be matched with the supervisor best suited to offer help and support.

Add to that the fear of sanction and recall is a barrier for people seeking help. Even if the offender knows recall is unlikely, the fact that it's possible creates a significant barrier. It also forms a barrier seeking help from other agencies because you can never be sure what, when or with who your information may be shared. For many of those 40,000 that the MoJ boast about 'bringing into the fold', they've just created a revolving door with no exit. The question is, does TR do more harm then good?

*****
This may seem an unusual question to ask as a long serving PO, but, what is the point of OASys? When OASys was first rolled out, we were instructed to write short but relevant notes in 1-13 sections, document a short yet clear risk management plan and a short sentence plan; a document being instructed to be shared with partnership agencies. Even managing a high case load, producing meaningful (as far as was possible) OASys did not prevent me from doing my job as an Offender Manager.

Roll forward to this week. Now, on average, completing a new ISP to meet the newly developed Quality Assurance Standards takes 10+ hours. A colleague said one recently took them over 12 hours. We both have many years service and know how to do an OASys. This is proving to be the norm not the exception.

Reviews to this new standard, Terminations to this new standard, all take our time away from seeing offenders (ex). Many OASys are being rolled back, rejected, no longer meeting this new super duper standard, with requests to do a better job again being the norm rather than the exception. No longer can we share them with partnership agencies. Just who the hell reads them? Add to the fact that each offender needs an ISP, numerous reviews, and a Termination review, all to meet this new Quality Assurance Standard, and it begs the question, what are Oasys about?

Sure, as Officers, we can spend all out days data inputting. But what about the offenders we supervise? How can it make sense that I have to allocate 10+ hours for an ISP, perhaps half that or more for a detailed review etc, and when you multiply these numbers by the 30-40 case loads, cases changing hands time and time again, then I and my colleagues have little or no time for anything else, let alone supporting, supervising and assisting those with are changed with managing.

Am I alone in questioning the validity of Oasys, or any computer task that means Officers have to spend 7.5 hours of an 8 hour day data inputting? How can we help offenders turn their lives around if we don't have time to spend with them? I do know this, 10 hours spent with an offender will have more results in helping that person turn their life around than the same amount of time spent on a computer. Anyone else agree with this, and if so, what can we do about it?

*****
Agree totally as it’s not good for anybody’s health to be sat at a computer for this length of time. Cut backs and procedures without adequate training ie learn as you go results in mistakes which could leave the public at risk. Frustrating times for service users and staff alike. Pro social modelling is hard to deliver when you are treated in such way. Transparency doesn’t exist. As an employer you have a duty of health and safety to your employees. You are not only letting the public and service user down but your staff who are hard dedicated workers who want to do a good job and help service users turn their life around.

*****
Not just PSS, also Community and Suspended sentences not being supervised for months on end by CRC. Pre TR the Mags used to scrutinise engagement with community penalties - not any more. Have they too been told they cannot hinder in court the commercial practice of CRCs?

*****
In London CRC all PSS are assessed as low risk and supervised by Penrose. A “light touch” we’re told to call it. http://www.penrose.org.uk Say no more!

*****
Are they serious! Assessing all PSS as low risk is a criminal act in itself! Ludicrous. Whoever made this decision needs to be hauled before the courts to explain their decision making process and risk management. Ok, some or many could be low risk but definitely not all. What about the DV cases..?