Napo Elections 2018

Whilst we continue to await the 'big' probation announcement, much delayed by the MoJ until a quiet news day where it can hopefully be buried - expected tomorrow guys - we'd better mention the election and ballot for Napo National Officers. As always, any candidate is more than welcome to use this blog as a platform on which to address the membership if they so desire.    

BR 34/2018 IL/AV 

5th July 2018 

To: Branch Chairs, Vice Chairs, Secretaries, Convenors Family Court SEC NEC Co-Representatives 

Dear Colleague, 

Nominations for Napo Officers 2018-20 Nominations for Black Representatives to NEC 2018-20 Nominations for Steering Committee 2019-22 

The closing date for branch nominations for National Officers, NEC Black Representatives and Steering Committee was 12 noon on Thursday 5th July. 

1. Nominations for National Officers 2018-20 

Nominations were sought from branches for the position of Chair and two ViceChairs (Probation). The term of office for these postholders will be two years, from AGM 2018 to AGM 2020. For the position of Chair 2 nominations had been received from branches by the closing date. Those nominated are as follows:- 

Katie Lomas White/Female PO West Yorkshire 

Denise Mason White/Female Grade 5 Kent Surrey Sussex 

Since more than one nomination has been received an election will be held to fill this position. 

For the two positions of Vice-Chair (Probation) 6 nominations had been received from branches by the closing date. Those nominated are as follows:- 

Iqbal (Ikki) Bhogal Asian/Female PSO West Yorkshire 

Robbie Bourget White/Female PO Thames Valley 

Siobhan Foreman White/Female PO Northumbria 

Denice James White/Female PO South Southwestern 

Jamie Overland White/Male SPO London 

Tina Williams White/Female PO Hampshire and Isle of Wight 

Since more than two nominations have been received an election will be held to fill these two positions.

2. Nominations for NEC Black Representatives 2018-20 

For the two positions of NEC Black Representatives no nominations had been received from branches by the closing date. There being no nominations received, further nominations will be invited in due course. 

3. Nominations for Steering Committee 2019-22 

Nominations were also sought for two vacancies on Steering Committee. Those elected will serve for three years, the posts taking effect from January 2019. By the closing date 1 nomination had been received from branches. Those nominated are as follows:- 

Howard Davies White/Male PO/Retired East Anglia 

There being only one nomination received, Howard Davis is elected unopposed and further nominations will be invited in due course for the remaining place. 

4. Ballot for Chair and Vice-Chairs (Probation) 

Electoral Reform Services (ERS) has been appointed as the Independent Scrutineer for the elections and will oversee a ballot of all full members. 

Ballot papers will be posted second class to all full members from Monday 23rd July, and the closing date for return of the ballot papers to ERS will be 12.00 noon on Friday 31st August. 

Any member who has not received a ballot paper by Tuesday 31st July should contact ERS directly. 

Yours sincerely

 

IAN LAWRENCE 

General Secretary

Reprint 3 A View From The Other Side

Whilst we continue to await the long-rumoured and now long-delayed 'big' announcement by the MoJ and how it's intended to try and fix the TR omnishambles created by Chris Grayling, I've been taking another dip into the archives. Here's a purely random piece from the early, seemingly more genteel days of fewer readers and even fewer comments. Hopefully it sheds some light on how the hell we got to where we are now, not least in relation to the recent discussion regarding the demise of the PSR, and the part played by bloody OASys.

The piece generated two responses, the first from legendary Magistrate blogger Bystander and the second from a seasoned practitioner clearly:-

"Every sentencer should read this piece. It is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. It must be heartbreaking for experienced and caring people who have had their life's work kicked from under them."

"Excellent piece. My favourite OASys blobs with lifers are (1) author scoring "lack of suitable accommodation" as a problem, when it's extremely unlikely that the Parole Board would ever release a lifer without suitable accommodation being present. I've made several lifers very happy by amending their OASys to reflect this and seeing their risk scores reduce markedly as a result. (2) OASys author with a spousal homicide case scoring the lifer as "high risk of harm to known adult" when said known adult has been deceased for years and so no longer at risk of harm. The sort of blobs which keep folk in jail longer than necessary."

Thursday, 6 January 2011

A View From The Other Side

One of the many fascinating aspects of this once wonderful job is the chance you get to meet interesting people on a daily basis. I have always loved talking to people and to be paid to do it for a living always struck me as not a job at all, but merely an extension of everyday life. All the endless bureaucratic irritations introduced over recent years can be forgotten in the privacy of the interview room, so far away from the prying eyes and ears of management as video recording has yet to be introduced there.

It's difficult to explain the buzz you get from knowing virtually nothing about a person at the beginning beyond their name, offence, date of birth and address and absolutely no idea where the conversation and subsequent journey will take you. A meaningful dialogue is vital. Some people you might only meet once or twice. Some you will spend a significant part of your life getting to know. All types, all ages, all backgrounds, all dispositions. I would not be human if I didn't admit to enjoying a challenge on occasion and particularly an intellectual one. This can come from any number of directions, but in my experience most frequently from the very long-term prisoner or 'lifer'.

In trying to find material to keep this blog fed, I've found myself paying rather closer than normal attention to the excellent Probation Journal published quarterly in conjunction with Sage and NAPO. In the September 2010 edition my eye was attracted to an article by Jon Keeler, a long term prisoner presently residing at HMP Long Lartin. To my knowledge this is unique and makes a welcome change from the usual academic and practitioner contributions, worthy though they almost invariably are. In quite a lengthy and very competent piece, Jon has some pretty strong words of criticism for the Probation Service generally and probation officers in particular. He documents the change in ethos of the Service so often lamented on here, but goes much further in cataloguing in forensic detail the effect it's all had on a large part of our clientele, namely the long-term prisoner.

Until I read this article I really hadn't appreciated how probation officers are currently perceived by such inmates - it seems we're now the enemy, barely indistinguishable from the police or prison officers. Apparently they now even use the same terms of abuse previously only reserved for the police and prison staff. Ordinary members of the public might not find this surprising, given their perception of what they think we do, but I'm deeply saddened by it and can appreciate how it's come about. Pretty much it can be summed up by the dreaded acronym OASys.

Jon confirms the widely held view that the whole ghastly thing was foisted upon the Probation Service as a result of being an unwilling bride in an arranged marriage with the Prison Service. He goes on to say "The effect on us, the prisoner-wards of this unhappy relationship, is a form of abuse in which the probation service is complicit." Strong stuff indeed, but confirming something we might be tempted to lose sight of, namely that all the endless crap that is fed into OASys on a daily basis, affects peoples lives.

I have seen no end of unsubstantiated gossip and tittle tattle masquerading as evidence or assessments and typically input by inexperienced and barely trained prison officers that then sits there for months, only to be built upon by other officers further down the line without challenge. As we all know, OASys is about risk assessment and the basis on which progress through the prison system is now determined, but the system is becoming completely unfit for purpose by being full of inaccuracies, unsubstantiated and subjective assessments and scores that vary for seemingly no good reason at all. Jon sums the situation up by making the observation that "It is an irony that the process of objectification of prisoners may have the unintended consequence of deskilling the processors. As they reduce prisoners to the single dimension of their offence category, in OASys they are themselves reduced from professionals able to use judgements about people based on training and experience to mere box-ticking technicians."

In part defence I feel I have to say that most OASys documents on long-term prisoners were initiated and subsequently maintained by prison staff. Probation officers, when exercising the so-called 'offender manager' role are only able to request temporary 'ownership' of the OASys document for short periods when they are faced with the almost impossible task of trying to amend, update and improve an already completed document. This takes hours and to be honest often results in a 'dogs breakfast' unless a complete re-write is attempted. I would also say that sadly one motive for bringing in OASys in the first place was so that it could indeed be filled in by less well-trained 'technicians'.

Jon's very lengthy article covering many aspects of probation work ends on a particularly bleak note by stating that meaningful contact with his probation officer has become impossible and all that is left "is a running battle over the accuracy of information in OASys and the competence of assessors." We know that only 24% of our time is available for client contact and prison visits are necessarily curtailed by this and cost restraints. Perhaps not surprising then he sums up with the insightful comment "I can think of no better description of the probation service, as experienced by prisoners, than a deceptive substitute for real contact." Oh dear. What a monster has indeed been created in the shape of OASys and the damned computer.

Probation Dissed

The Urban Dictionary says this about dissed

1. dissing someone is showing disrespect to them
2. being dissed is the act of being disconnected, by voice or by modem, from another party

Now that our Parliamentarians are on holiday until September, let's recap where we are following the blizzard of government announcements yesterday that conspicuously failed to mention probation at all.

Ian Lawrence Twitter 18th July:- 

"Probation unions are in high level talks with the HMPPS Programme Team prior to an expected announcement on the MoJ response to Justice Select Committee report into TR. More news when it becomes available possibly before the Parliamentary recess."

Comments Yesterday 24th July:-

"I have just heard Glenys Stacey being interviewed on the Today programme. She said the problem with CRCs is that they're not being paid enough! Outrageous! They are pocketing huge amounts of money for themselves at the expense of the service. When will this stop?"

"Shockingly poor interview of Gauke by Martha Carney. No mention of fixing TR. Usual guff about prison officer numbers and pay. Where are NAPO, Unison and the POA? Massive open goal to set the record straight missed again. They must be taking lessons from Raheem Sterling. Suppose IL will cite his many appearances on RT as proof he's media savvy. Watched by 50 people and paid for by Putin. BTW, where's my money in public sector pay news?"

"I suspect Dame Glenys and the BBC have had advanced sight of embargoed plans for probation and she is the warm up act preparing us for the privateers digging deeper into the public purse."

"So, well done BBC. A beautifully co-ordinated Today programme neatly timetabled to support the Govts public relations announcements, with Dame Glenys teeing up the next round of handouts to CRCs. A grotesque slowdance with Auntie Beeb desperate for Tory affection."

Rory Stewart MP yesterday:-

"Our hard-working prison officers, managers and governors are at the absolute heart of this. They do a vital job in protecting the public every day, often in very challenging, difficult and dangerous circumstances."

Comments yesterday:-

"So the HMPPS apparently only consists of “hard working” prison officers. Do probation officers not exist anymore?"

"2.75% pay increase for prison officers? No mention of Probation? Thought they may have to pass on an increase to fund our rise? Hope our union is fighting our corner for increases to assist in probation catching up with other professions."

"So we are part of the Civil Service but not Civil Servants, and part of HMPPS but not worthy of a payrise? When will Gauke wake the fuck up and sort this shit out?"

"17 years in September and just over half way up Band 4. Rory's weasal words don't pay the bills. Hope he can sleep at night. Still, only another three years until I get my specially struck medallion. I'll be taking a leaf out of John Lennon's book and sending it back. It'll have a message attached encouraging them to stick it up their arse. In the memorable words of a disgruntled prostitute who once woke me up in the middle of the night banging on my downstairs neighbours door."WHERE'S MY FUCKING MONEY".

"If probation officers get 2.75% they will only have a further 20% to make up their pay to pre austerity rates. IL has it in hand!"

Richard Burgon MP yesterday:-

"It's rumoured that the Tories are planning another massive bailout to the failing privatised probation companies - on top of the £342 MILLION bailout last year. They know it's unpopular so don't be surprised if they try to sneak it out when Parliament isn't sitting!"

Seen on Facebook yesterday:-

"I heard that the MoJ will bail out CRCs on the basis they have a massive recruitment drive so that they can meet new HMIP standards. To give an example my CRC would need to recruit 100-120 across all grades to stand a chance of hitting them."

"Where’s the motivation for us to continue? Ever since we’ve become civil servants we’ve been treated like the poor relative that no one wants. A 26% loss (estimated) since the pay freeze came in is disgusting. I, for one, will be out if a strike is balloted. We’ve got to stand up now to get what we’re worth!"

Ian Lawrence Twitter today:-

"Napo/UNISON message to members on Pay to follow shortly. Probation not part of Prison pay review body but how insensitive does it get from the Minister to make no mention that probation pay negotiations are starting soon?"

Postscript

This blog received 3402 hits yesterday and remains the place to go for news and sharing information whenever a probation story kicks off. 

No Prison Reform Without Probation Reform

As every day goes by, more and more attention turns to the effects of Grayling's disastrous TR and prison policies and we know the government cannot ignore things for much longer. There continues to be much discussion as to how the prison population can be reduced, but nothing will work unless the damage inflicted upon the probation service is rectified. So, while we continue to await an 'announcement', here is the Criminal Justice Alliance with some suggestions for Rory Stewart:- 

HOW TO START REDUCING THE PRISON POPULATION

Dear Rory, 

Thank you so much for coming to speak to CJA members in May and articulating your determination to address some of the prison service’s most pressing operational challenges. The present level of the prison population in England and Wales is clearly one of the most significant of those challenges. 

We are encouraged by the recent small reduction in the prison population. Increasing the Home Detention Curfew caseload has been an effective way to start to reduce some of the pressure on our heavily overcrowded prison system and providing a managed transition for prisoners into the community. But more must be done. 

You said at our recent Members Meeting that you’d be happy to receive suggestions on how the prison population might be reduced, without compromising public safety. Possibilities for this in eight areas are enclosed. None of these proposals is revolutionary. 

They’re almost all both pragmatic and incremental. Many could be effected without legislation. Their implications for a reduction in the prison population of some 12,000 during the lifetime of this parliament are based on conservative assumptions. 

Any such reduction in the prison population also offers the possibility - based on similarly cautious estimates – of saving £900m of public money. The attached schedule details these savings. 

We hope these suggestions – based on knowledge shared by many of the CJA’s member organisations – will be helpful. Thank you for asking us to share them with you. We look forward to continue working with you to support efforts in reducing the prison population. 

Yours sincerely, 

Nina Champion Director, CJA

1. IPP Sentences 

The current IPP (Sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection) population stands at nearly 2,900. Almost 90 per cent of these prisoners have served beyond the tariff deemed necessary as appropriate punishment for their offences. Without further intervention, the Parole Board acknowledges this figure may reduce to 1,500 by 2020. But this number remains unacceptably high, and the Government could be more ambitious in its approach, ensuring the IPP prison population reduces to less than 500 prisoners by 2022. (Net saving allowing for costs of external supervision £202.2m.) 

In our view, the Ministry of Justice should consider legislative intervention to convert posttariff IPP sentences to determinate sentences – a simple solution providing firm release dates. As CJA member Prison Reform Trust highlights, people serving IPP sentences have one of the highest rates of self-harm in the prison system. Providing a clear release date may help reduce this rate. 

As a minimum starting point, the 459 IPP prisoners serving tariffs of less than two years could have their sentences converted, expanding to the 1,176 IPP prisoners with tariffs of less than four years, then scaled up appropriately. A ‘sunset’ provision could also provide a release date for some or all post-tariff IPP prisoners by a particular year or by a number of years post-tariff. 

In the meantime, the availability of courses conditional for the release of IPP prisoners must continue to be prioritised. 

Once IPP prisoners are released, much more needs to be done to ensure that they do not return to prison. There is growing concern about the number of people serving IPP sentences who are recalled following release – currently over 800 prisoners. Nearly two thirds of those currently recalled are re-released following review by the Parole Board.This may necessitate a review by the Ministry of Justice of the licence conditions in the Prison Instructions. Further, people serving IPP sentences are often deeply institutionalised and require intensive independent advocacy support to facilitate their resettlement in the community. Many CJA members provide this type of support, but further investment is needed.

2. Recall 

On any given day in 1995, there were fewer than 200 people in prisons for recalls. In March 2018 there were over 6,000. 6 Over half – 58 per cent – of these had not been charged with a further offence, and were instead recalled for other licence breaches, such as failure to keep an appointment on time, or drugs and alcohol issues. And many people ‘recalled’ to prison did not receive a custodial sentence in the first instance.

There is little doubt that the extension of post-sentence supervision to those sentenced to less than 12 months has contributed to the rise in the recall population. Further, new Sentencing Council guidelines for sentencing breaches (effective from1 October 2018) will have custody as a starting point for even minor breaches. It is recognised that this ‘could have an impact on the prisons, with more offenders being sent to custody than at present’.

Recalls are costly interventions that interrupt the effective reintegration of former prisoners. The Ministry might review both the standard and extra licence conditions that Offender Managers can impose, as well as the mechanism for recalling a person following breach, emphasising that recall should be preserved for those presenting a serious risk to the public or genuinely failing to progress towards reintegration. 

But the best way to prevent an unnecessary recall is to ensure there is no breach in the first place, by providing effective rehabilitative support. Unfortunately, as highlighted in the Justice Committee’s recent review, probation services are critically underperforming and the effectiveness of Transforming Rehabilitation is in serious doubt. Securing accommodation is particularly problematic, especially for young people leaving custody, and recalls cause critical disruption to an already challenging process. 

Recognising that there will be some situations where someone may need to be recalled where there has been no further offence, keeping even 3,000 people out of prison and in the community where productive rehabilitation can take place could save £231.8m net over four years. 

3. Remand 

Those on remand – 9,200 people – now represent over ten per cent of the prison population. One in seven – nearly 1,400 – go on to receive non-custodial sentences. Ensuring this cohort is not needlessly kept in prison could save £39.9m annually.

The numbers are particularly stark for those remanded in custody and tried in the Magistrates’ Courts – of the 22,300 defendants annually, a quarter are acquitted and a third receive a non-custodial sentence. 

The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 properly introduced a test of ‘no real prospect’ where remand should not be sought for an un-convicted defendant where there is no real prospect of a custodial sentence. CJA Member Transform Justice has noted that the law is largely satisfactory and compliant with international standards. However, in practice its implementation results in many defendants being remanded when other alternatives are or should be available. The Crown Prosecution Service, defence advocates and judges should ensure this test is applied much more rigorously. Greater use of electronic monitoring might also be considered as an alternative to remand.

4. ‘Sentence Creep’ 

Average sentence length for prisoners held for indictable offences is 30 per cent higher than ten years ago, up from 15.2 months to 20. There is no firm evidence that this ‘sentence creep’ has had any deterrent effect. 

If average sentence lengths had remained the same as in 2007 just for drug offences, fraud and theft, there would be approximately 2,000 fewer people in prison, saving £57m annually. (Research by data analysts Justice Episteme suggests that had sentencing policy for serious offences remained the same since 2003, there would be 16,000 fewer people in prison.) 

Change in this area will need to be incremental and the effects are unlikely to be seen immediately (unless changes are applied retrospectively to those already serving inflated sentences, such as an early release to electronic monitoring for low-risk prisoners). But without changes to sentencing practices, there seems little prospect of the vast bulk of the prison population reducing. 

More scrutiny could usefully be applied to the creation of sentencing guidelines by the Sentencing Council in the context of stretched prison resources and the effectiveness of custodial sentences. For instance, sentencers might be encouraged to sentence more creatively, restricting the requirements to use the upper limits of guidelines and allowing them to sentence below the lower limit. 

In 2017, the Sentencing Council admitted that increased severity of sentences for nondomestic and aggravated burglary offences ‘may be attributable’ to the introduction of the guideline for these offences. The Council has committed to reviewing this guideline, but as a priority, it should also commit to greater investment in assessing the impact of all guidelines, particularly those for high-volume crimes. 

5. Short Sentences 

At March 2018, 5,340 prisoners in England and Wales were serving sentences of less than 12 months. Short sentences are demonstrably less effective than community sentences at reducing recidivism (and more costly). Justice Secretary David Gauke has recently recognised this, stating that short sentences should be a last resort. Short-Sighted, a campaign by CJA member Revolving Doors, highlights that half of all people sentenced to custody are serving sentences of less than 6 months. 

Scotland introduced a presumption against custodial sentences of three months or less in 2010, and last September announced plans to extend this presumption to sentences of less than 12 months. Other countries with similar provisions include Belgium and Germany.

There may be certain instances for which this presumption against a custodial sentence would not be deemed appropriate given the interests of, and risks to, the victim and wider community. But if reductions occurred at a similar rate as in Scotland, there would be 2,000 fewer people in prison. Introducing a presumption against short sentences of less than 12 months could save £57m annually. 

6. Mental Health 

There is currently insufficient data to accurately measure the number of people in prison suffering from poor mental health. But as recently as 2016, the Centre for Mental Health estimated that 90 per cent of the prison population have mental health problems, personality disorders, or substance misuse problems. 

The 2009 Bradley Review found an estimated 2,000 prison places per year could properly be saved if individuals who receive short custodial sentences and who may be experiencing mental health problems were instead given a community sentence. This would save £57m. For many people with mental health issues, a community order with a Mental Health Treatment Requirement (MHTR) would be transformative and the prison estate, in any case, is all too often entirely inadequately equipped either to treat them or address their offending behaviour. 

In order to effect any such change, sentencing guidelines on MHTR would need to be strengthened. CJA member JUSTICE has also called for a Sentencing Guideline on mental health and vulnerability to be created. Despite revised guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice four years ago, there has not yet been a significant increase in the use of MHTRs, so there is still significant scope for further uptake. As identified by the Offender Health Research Network, the purpose, process and eligibility for MHTRs should be described by the Ministry of Justice and Department of Health in collaboration.

Magistrates and judges might also require additional training to raise awareness of the use of MHTRs attached to community sentences, though emphasis should be on their availability and inclusion in pre-sentence reports. 

7. Women 

At the end of March 2018, 1,250 women were in prison for non-violent offences - either theft, fraud or drug offences.23 Serious concerns have properly been raised about the necessity of custodial sentences for such women, when the vast majority could serve a sentence in the community without posing a threat to public safety. It is alarming that any woman is imprisoned in 2018 for TV licence non-payment. 

Of the 852 women sentenced to prison for drug offences since 2016, 240 were sentenced to three years or more.24 This small group aside, there remain 1,000 women imprisoned for non-violent offences whose sentence could better be served in the community, saving £28.5m.

CJA member Women in Prison’s 2020 campaign – to halve the women’s prison population to 2,020 (or fewer) by 2020 – highlights how alternatives to custody such as Women’s Centres and community support services result in lower reoffending rates than prison. Further, sending a woman to prison for a short period of time can have a significant impact not only on the woman herself, but also on any dependent children, which in turn can lead to additional costs needing to be funded by the state, such as foster care. 

In order to effect this change, sentencing guidelines would need to be amended and steps taken to address funding of women’s services, particularly Women’s Centres. We welcome the pledge in the Female Offender Strategy to commit £5 million to community provision for women to address offending behaviour.

However, there are serious concerns that this is an insufficient amount to achieve the strategy’s aims. Moreover, it is a pittance in comparison to the £50 million originally earmarked for the now scrapped plan to build five community prisons. 

As of March 2018, there were 500 women serving sentences of less than 12 months.26 These women would almost certainly be better rehabilitated in the community with access to appropriate treatment and without disrupting existing housing or childcare arrangements. This would save £14.3m. 

8. BAME people 

If the demographic of the prison population reflected that of England and Wales, there would – as noted recently in David Lammy’s review of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) representation in the Criminal Justice System – be 9,000 fewer BAME people imprisoned, the equivalent of 12 average-sized prisons. If just ten per cent of these were diverted, this would save 900 prison places with (net) savings of £25.7m. 

As highlighted in the Review, one of the reasons for this disproportionality may be the association between ethnic group and likelihood of receiving a custodial sentence. Black people are 53 per cent more likely than white people to be sent to prison for an indictable offence at the Crown Court.

Lammy also highlighted the need for increased trust in the criminal justice system amongst BAME defendants, who were found to be more likely to opt for trial in Crown Court due to their higher confidence in the fairness of juries than in the fairness of the Magistrates’ Court. It recommended sensibly that all sentencing remarks in the Crown Court be published, to make justice more transparent and comprehensible, thereby building trust. Similarly, CJA member Centre for Justice Innovation advised that to improve the criminal court experience for BAME defendants, judges, magistrates and court staff should be trained in better courtroom engagement. 

Other recommendations in the Lammy Review include the CPS considering its approach to both gang prosecutions and to how Modern Slavery legislation could be used to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable young people and for identifying information to be redacted from case information passed to the CPS by the police to allow for ‘race-blind’ decisions. The 35 recommendations of the Review, if implemented, could significantly reduce the numbers of BAME people in prison.

What Is It With Virgin?

I'm hot, unhappy and feel the need to go 'off piste' again whilst we supposedly await a 'big statement' from the MoJ. Why am I unhappy? Because Virgin Media have seen fit to remove some of my favourite TV channels. This from the Independent:- 

Virgin Media angers viewers as dispute with UKTV wipes popular shows like Porridge and Red Dwarf

Virgin Media customers are up in arms after being deprived of their favourite shows such as Porridge, Red Dwarf, Only Fools and Horses and The Vicar of Dibley. Some viewers said they were cancelling their subscriptions after popular channels Dave and Gold were wiped from their boxes in a business dispute with UKTV. Other customers pledged to abandon the digital cable TV provider if the services were not restored.

UKTV, which owns Dave and Gold, has been locked in negotiations for days with Virgin Media over fees for its 10 channels, including five that are free-to-air. As they disappeared from about 4 million subscribers' televisions at midnight, viewers were also left unable to access UKTV on-demand services via their Virgin Media sets.

Free-to-air channels Dave, Yesterday, Home, Drama and Really, as well as paid-for channels Gold, Alibi, Eden, Good Food and W were replaced this morning. Gold features classic comedies such as Only Fools and Horses, and Australian crime drama Harrow is on Alibi. A revival of sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf has boosted Dave's viewing figures after it commissioned four new series.

One Twitter user wrote: "Will be cancelling TV, broadband & all phones as soon as we can get through to someone at Virgin! Think they might be busy with a lot of angry customers." Another warned Virgin Media: “So this looks like the end. 15 years a customer and you've messed up big-time. Sky shop Wednesday unless you fix it. #SaveDave" The stalemate also leaves fans of shows including Taskmaster and Judge Romesh unable to see their favourites.

Virgin Media has accused UKTV, which is co-owned by BBC Studios and US broadcaster Discovery, of seeking "inflated sums" for its paid channels. David Bouchier, of Virgin Media, said they were ready to restore UKTV's free channels, such as Dave, immediately with its permission.

"We have been in extensive discussions with UKTV but we have not been able to reach an agreement which reflects the reality of how people are watching television in the 21st century,” he said. "UKTV is insisting on holding back its channels, like Dave, which are freely available over the air and online, unless we pay inflated sums of money for its paid channels like Gold. On top of this, UKTV is unable to provide the extensive on-demand programming which is expected of a modern-day broadcaster."

But UKTV chief executive Darren Childs said the company could not accept the "drastic" cut in price that Virgin was seeking to show its paid-for channels on its pay-to-view service. "We're hugely disappointed for the many customers who are losing out because our channels are no longer available through Virgin Media," he said.

"We completely understand their frustration and would love to continue to bring them the shows and channels that they're so passionate about, but we need a fair price to support our growing investment in programmes."

--oo00oo--

This very annoying spat, involving as it does a very annoying brand run by a similarly very annoying and arrogant man intrigues me because we hear that Virgin is a hugely trusted brand. This on the sycophantic Inc website:- 

Richard Branson reveals why Virgin will never seek bankruptcy protection 

While many large companies choose to operate their various businesses under different names with their own unique identity (think, Pepsi and Pizza Hut or Apple and Beats), Virgin has opted to label all its operations under its signature brand. It's a decision Virgin founder Richard Branson admits has its own set of both advantages and challenges.

"Because the Virgin brand is well-trusted globally, if we set up a new venture and put the Virgin brand to it, it gives it a leg up," Branson said in an interview with Inc. president and editor-in-chief Eric Schurenberg.

On the other hand, if a Virgin business is ever in trouble, like the Virgin Megastores that were shut down in Europe and North America, Branson can't just file for bankruptcy. Instead he has to spend millions to make sure they bow out gracefully from the market. "We would never let a Virgin company go bust," Branson said. "We have to stand by all of our companies, and it costs us a lot more."

This committed investment into all the Virgin arms is well worth the risk, according to Branson. He revealed that "when music retailing was on its knees," the company spent tens of millions of pounds to prevent the collapse from destroying the rest of the Virgin brands. 

"Reputation is all you have in life, and I think it's worth spending that money," he said. 

--oo00oo--

But Virgin can't run a railway and handed the East Coast Main Line keys back only a few weeks ago; it keeps gobbling up large chunks of the NHS and has the effrontery to sue when they don't win a contract. So, why on earth would a company that owns Yorkshire Bank and Clydesdale Bank agree to buy Virgin Money, ditch both long-standing names and pay £12 million per year to re-badge everything bloody Virgin - a brand you have absolutely no control over? Not only do you mightily piss-off a huge number of your current customers, every time a negative Virgin story appears it hits the brand you have hitched your wagon to. Remember this from last year:-

Virgin’s decision to ban the Daily Mail on its trains is a PR disaster

On a train recently, I was able to see what the other people around me were reading. We were sitting at a table, four of us, all with laptops or tablets. In the window, in the reflection, I could look at their screens. We were all on Mail Online. Apart from my sheer nosiness, what else could be gleaned from this observation? That dailymail.co.uk is an extremely alluring beast, such that people from different walks of life are attracted to it. And if I wanted an illustration of the power of digital over print here it was. None of us was studying a newspaper, magazine or book.

It was a Virgin train going north on the West Coast line. Now, Virgin has decided to stop selling the Daily Mail on board its trains along the same route. The train company’s staff object, apparently, to the newspaper’s coverage of various issues, and a ban has therefore been imposed. Not only is this bizarre – given that anyone can purchase a copy elsewhere before boarding a Virgin train, or as I found they can peruse the paper’s sister website to their heart’s content – but it is public relations suicide.

Virgin workers may not share the paper’s stance on a range of causes, from the EU to immigration to LGBT rights to unemployment, but to ban the sale of the paper? What are they thinking? More to the point, what is Sir Richard Branson, the firm’s boss, thinking?

No one is more PR-savvy than Branson, nobody in the past has exhibited a surer touch when it comes to promoting themselves or their brand. Branson has been telling us for years that he is Virgin, that the company and founder are inseparable, their values identical. He promotes himself to promote Virgin. Now we know that those standards he so aspires to include restricting choice and controlling freedom of expression.

For once, Branson’s deftness has deserted him. Free speech, and that includes a free press, is one of the tenets we hold dear. It’s something we cite whenever asked why we fought world wars, and what it is we regard as special about the UK, about our democracy.

The Daily Mail may not be to all tastes. But that can be said of any newspaper, any publication. If you don’t like it, you have the licence not to buy it. Nobody is forcing you to digest it, let alone agree with its contents.

Some of Branson’s workers were annoyed by the Daily Mail. So what? As I say, no one was requiring them to read it. Could it be that Branson himself, the hippy billionaire and Remainer, does not approve of the Brexit-supporting Daily Mail? Almost certainly. But to allow that opposition to get in the way of something as precious as press freedom – something he also, surely, agrees passionately about – is hysterical.

Thanks to Virgin’s move, a sale of just 70 papers a day on its West Coast line has now become a cause celebre, with Branson and his company accused by politicians of every hue, of censorship. Even Labour, no friend of the Daily Mail, has voiced its support for the paper. The party will not restrict sales of the Daily Mail, if it succeeded in renationalising the railways. A spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn said the Labour leader was an "enthusiastic supporter of a free press and the pluralism of the press. Obviously, private companies will decide what they want to stock on their trains."

Downing Street said the move was ultimately a decision for Virgin Trains but Prime Minister Theresa May had "always been clear on the importance of a free press to our democracy".

And Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, a former journalist, tweeted: "Absurd ban on Daily Mail by Virgin! Pompous, censorious and wrong #virginontheridiculous". The Society of Editors, that counts many editors among its members, voiced its opposition, saying the decision taken by Virgin Trains "smacks of censorship". Virgin has managed to stir up political leaders, and antagonised the rest of the press as well. Well done.

What Branson, the PR-master, has failed to do is to keep things in perspective. He’s created a major issue, one that was bound to see a rallying round of support for the Daily Mail, and one, inevitably, that has inserted him into the centre of it.

The slippery slope towards a boycott of all Virgin products because the company abhors freedom beckons. From irritation, possibly anger, at one newspaper Branson faces the very real prospect of a public relations crisis. It’s extraordinary that one normally so smart should have committed such a grave error. Branson should extricate himself from this particular hole, and restore the Daily Mail, before it is too late.

Although, perhaps he intends to go further. After all, why stop at the Daily Mail? At present Virgin’s West Coast trains stock alternative titles, but presumably, if they step out of line they too will be struck off. Or next, Virgin’s cabin attendants and ticket inspectors disapprove of what we’re reading on our screens and we’re ordered to switch sites or to turn them off completely. Branson and co have started something that has an unpleasant odour about it and will not have a happy ending.

Chris Blackhurst is a former editor of The Independent, and executive director of C|T|F Partners, the campaigns and strategic communications advisory firm.

--oo00oo--

He back-tracked of course:- 

Sir Richard Branson tells Virgin Trains to lift ban on Daily Mail

PSR At Last Lamented

Whilst we await the MoJ announcement as to how the TR omnishambles is going to be fixed - and note it's to be made as Parliament goes on its summer holidays next week until September - here we have the Centre for Justice Innovation getting worried about the demise of the PSR.

Clearly they don't read this blog because we've been discussing the topic for years and  predicted what would happen as a direct result of:-

• OASys and the infamous 'generate PSR' button 
• the refusal to allow proper adjournments for a professional piece of work 
• the downgrading of the task by allowing PSO's to prepare 'on the day reports' 
• allowing HMCTS, MoJ and NPS to view PSR preparation as 'delaying speedy justice' 
• the dead hand of civil service culture
• a fundamental failure by all to appreciate what a vitally important sentencing tool a full PSR is if prepared by qualified and experienced staff 

I suggest the author of this report would do well to peruse the archives including:-

Death of the PSR
Folly of PSR Demise
When Is a PSR Not a PSR?

--oo00oo--

The full report can be found here. I've not copied the graphs and have removed references:-    

The changing use of pre-sentence reports

Summary

As part of our work to understand why the number of community sentences – community orders, suspended sentence orders and other similar disposals - has fallen by 24% over the past ten years in England and Wales, we are examining the relationship between the courts and probationary services, with a particular focus on the National Probation Service’s work in courts.

In this interim analysis, we present emerging findings from the national data on the use of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) to see whether changes in their use have impacted on the use of community sentences. Sentencers are expected to obtain a PSR before passing any community sentence (other than a stand-alone unpaid work requirement) or any custodial sentence (except one where custody is the only option).

We have found that between 2012-13 and 2016-17:

• There has been a 22% fall in the number of new PSRs produced. This fall means that there has been an increase in the number of sentences passed (both community sentences and custody) where no new PSR has informed sentencing; 
• There has been a significant change in how PSRs are delivered to court, with an increasing proportion of PSRs delivered orally rather than in writing; 
• While the number of PSRs has fallen, where they are used, the likelihood that sentencers follow the recommendations in the report has increased slightly (by 4% since 2012/13); 
• Because cases with PSRs are more than ten times more likely to receive a community sentence, falling numbers of PSRs is strongly linked to the decline in community sentences; 

Our modelling suggests that if the number of PSRs had remained stable that there could have been 33,000 more community sentences a year.

These emerging findings open up a range of further questions: What is driving the fall in new PSRs? How is advice being provided in cases which don’t have them? And ultimately, what is making sentencers less likely to use community sentences when they don’t have pre-sentence advice?

We are exploring these issues with practitioners, in advance of our final report, due in the September 2018, but we invite practitioners and experts to get in touch and help us explore these questions.

Background to this briefing

The Centre for Justice Innovation is working to identify ways to improve the use of community sentences – community orders, suspended sentence orders and other similar sentences. Community sentences have been shown to be significantly more effective than short term custodial sentences in reducing reoffending. We are therefore concerned to note that there has been a 24% decrease in the number of community sentences in England and Wales over the past ten years, with much of the decline occurring since 2011, while other UK jurisdictions have maintained or increased their use. While it is difficult to say exactly what is causing this trend, our previous work on this issue suggests that it does not seem to be the result of falling case volumes nor is the decline a result of a changing offence mix. Whilst clearly, community sentences will not be right for every offender, we are concerned that there are some offenders currently receiving either fines or custodial sentences who would benefit from the combination of support and accountability offered by a community sentence.

Based on our research to date, we believe that there are a range of policy and practice choices, some recent and others long-standing, which have impacted on the relationship between courts and probation and that these are a more likely explanation of the falls in the use of community sentences. This paper, therefore, examines the relationship between the courts and probation, with a particular focus on pre-sentence advice provided to sentencers by the National Probation Service (NPS). It uses national data from a range of sources to examine how the provision of this advice has changed since 2012-132.

Pre-sentence reports

Pre-sentence reports (PSRs), give judges and magistrates an expert assessment of the risk posed by an offender, the factors which lie behind their offending and the strengths that they can draw on to move away from crime. They also provide an opportunity for the NPS report writers who produce them to make a sentence recommendation. This expert assessment is vital in effective sentencing: evidence shows that finding the right intervention can help a person move away from crime while the wrong one can actually increasing the chance of reoffending. Sentencers are expected to obtain a PSR before passing any community sentence (other than a stand-alone unpaid work requirement) or any custodial sentence (except one where custody is the only option).

Finding 1: The total number of pre-sentence reports produced has fallen by 22% over the last five years. 

As figure 1 demonstrates, only 144,000 PSRs were delivered in 2016-17, compared to 184,000 in 2012-13, a fall of 22%. 

This decline has been broadly consistent across all offence groups. This decline in the number of PSRs used is striking given that overall numbers of sentences passed remained stable over this period. It is not clear what the reason is for this, though one possible contributor may be the new NPS policy of reusing existing PSRs for subsequent convictions up to a year after the report was first submitted. However, the trend predates the introduction of this guidance.

Finding 2: More custodial and community sentences are being made without the advice of a pre-sentence report. 

Sentencing Council guidance provides sentencers with some flexibility about when they need a PSR but sentencers are generally expected to use a PSR before passing any community sentence (other than a stand-alone unpaid work requirement) or any custodial sentence (except one where custody is the only option). Yet, with the numbers of pre-sentence reports falling, a greater proportion of community and custodial sentences are now being passed without the benefit of a new pre-sentence report.

Finding 3: Oral pre-sentence reports have nearly doubled in the last two years, while both forms written reports have fallen sharply over the same period. 

As well as providing a new definition of PSRs, the 2003 Criminal Justice Act also removed the requirement for them to be delivered to courts in writing, opening the door for the development of a format for the oral delivery of reports. Today, the NPS uses three different report formats: oral and written FDRs (both of which are usually delivered on the day) and standard delivery reports (SDRs) (delivered after an adjournment which is used to obtain additional information). 

As figure 3 illustrates, the use of oral FDRs has nearly doubled, from 29% of all reports in 14-15 to 57% last year. Written FDRs have fallen by a quarter, from 53% to 39% and SDRs have fallen from 19% to only 4%.

Finding 4: These changes in how reports are delivered to court are the result of intention policy and practice changes, most importantly the NPS’ E3 National Operating model and its targets. 

These changes in report formats have driven by the introduction of targets for the use of PSR formats. New operating guidance on the use of different PSR formats was set out in the NPS’s 2016 E3 National Operating model and an accompanying probation instruction. The model introduced new national targets for the use of different PSR formats. Oral FDRs were to be increased to 60% of all reports, while written FDRs and the most time-consuming SDRs were to be reduced to 30% and 10% respectively.

It should not be assumed that the growing use of oral FDRs is, in itself a cause for concern. The E3 model includes a range of innovations which seek to ensure that report writers can access all the relevant information in time to produce on the day reports and a recent inspectorate review found that more than 90% of the Oral FDRs in their study were of sufficient quality to inform sentencing. 

However, the very low use of SDRs, which is currently less than half of the 10% target, does imply that more comprehensive assessments are being used only in a very limited number of cases. This does at least beg the question of whether all the information which would be relevant to sentencing is being presented in every case.

Finding 5: The likelihood that sentencers follow probation recommendations (the concordance rate) has increased slightly (by 4% points). 

Unlike their counterparts in other UK jurisdictions, pre-sentence report writers in England and Wales include a recommendation of what, in their view, is the most appropriate sentence option. As figure 7 shows, the past five years have seen a slight increase in the proportion of PSRs recommending community sentences, from 89% in 2012-13 to 91% in 2016-17. 

Whether the sentence passed by the court is concordant with recommendation of the PSR recommendation is a key metric of a PSRs’ effectiveness. Figure 4 shows that there has been a slight increase in concordance rates, which have risen from 68% to 72%. 

This has been accompanied by a fall in rates of “uptariffing” (sentencers imposing a more punitive form of sentence than the one recommended by probation) which has fallen from 26% to 19%. Rates of “downtariffing” (sentencers imposing a less punitive form of sentence than the one recommended by probation) have increased slightly, from 68% to 72%.

Finding 6: Oral fast delivery reports have consistently had the highest concordance rates of all PSR formats over the period. 

Figure 6 sets out concordance rates for the different PSR formats. It shows that concordance with Oral FDRs has been consistently higher than with other formats over the past five years. This difference is likely accounted for by the tendency for longer-format reports to be used in more serious cases as concordance rates are consistently lower for more serious offence groups.

Finding 7: There has been a small increase in the proportion of PSRs recommending community sentences. 

Within that group, there has been a significant trend towards the recommendation of suspended sentences and away from community orders. Suspended sentences have increased from 15% to 31% of all recommendations, while community orders have fallen by almost exactly the same amount, from 76% to 61%. In other words, suspended sentences have displaced community orders in PSR recommendations on almost one-for-one basis.

Finding 8: Rates of community sentences use in cases without new PSRs have fallen.

Cases where there is a PSR have always been far more likely than cases without one to result in a community sentence. This is to be expected: as a group these cases represent an offence mix and offender profile that are seen as appropriate for a community sentence. In many cases, the request by the court for a PSR is to determine what type of community sentence is passed, rather than whether one is passed. 

Figure 8 shows the proportion of PSR and non-PSR cases that receive community sentences. Community sentence usage in PSR cases has risen slightly from 75% to 79%. However community sentences usage in non-PSR has fallen by more than a quarter, from 5.6% to 4.3%. This fall is striking. Over the past five years, as we have seen a reduction in the number of PSRs requested by the courts, we should expect to see more sentencing cases where a community sentence is appropriate fall into in the non-PSR group and, therefore, see a greater proportion of non-PSR sentencing cases result in a community sentence. The fact that there has been a decline in the use of community sentences in the non-PSR group suggests the possibility that not having new PSRs is associated with a reduction in these cases’ likelihood to receive a community sentence. 

Finding 9: The reduced use of pre-sentence reports seems to be a significant driver of the declining use of community sentences. 

Figure 9 shows how the make-up of the community sentence population has changed since 2012-13. It shows that, the majority of the decline in community sentences (a little over three quarters) has occurred within the cases which have new PSRs. Given that, as noted above the proportion of this group getting pre-sentence reports has not changed, the key factor here is the shrinking size of this group. 

Our modelling suggests that, if new PSRs were still being used as commonly as they were in 2012-13, and if community sentence rates within those two groups were unchanged, then we would see an extra 33,000 community sentences a year, reversing around 85% of the decline since 2012-13.

However, we would urge caution when interpreting these findings. The data alone does not speak to the causes in falls in PSRs or the causal relationship between PSRs and the use of community sentences. It could very well be that PSR use has declined because sentencers are less likely to consider a community sentence, rather than the other way around. It should not be assumed that increasing the number of PSRs will necessarily result in an increase in community sentences. Nonetheless, we can infer a relationship between these two factors.

Conclusions and questions

The statistics presented above tell a complex story about the relationship between changing use of PSRs and the declining use of community sentences. However, we can draw a number of tentative conclusions.

First, we can see that PSRs continue to recommend community sentences, and that those recommendations continue to carry weight with sentencers. In cases with new PSRs, reports are actually slightly more likely to recommend community sentences and sentencers are slightly more likely to follow those recommendations meaning that the use of community sentences in these cases is actually up.

Second, we can see that the way that pre-sentence advice is delivered has changed significantly. There are fewer new PSRs being produced each year, and far fewer of those are written. While the NPS has put significant effort into procedures to ensure the quality of pre-sentence advice under the new regime, such as the effective proposal framework to support more robust recommendations, the development of new procedures to facilitate timely access to information and new approaches to updating older PSRs, this nonetheless amounts to a significant reduction in the volume of pre-sentence advice produced.

Third, we can see that the falling use of community sentences seems to be related to two factors: the increasing proportion of cases receiving no new pre-sentence report and the declining use of community sentences in those cases.

However, as always, the statistics only tells part of the story. We find ourselves with many questions to answer before we can have a full picture of the causes of declining community sentences – or the approaches which can reverse that decline. In particular, we wonder:

• Why is the use of pre-sentence reports declining? Is it driving the reduced use of community sentences, or being driven by it? 
• How prevalent is the re-use of existing PSRs? How far is it contributing to declining numbers of new PSRs? Where it occurs, how are recommendations made? How is advice in these cases being recorded? 
• What factors are driving sentencers’ reduced use of community sentences in cases where there is no new PSR? There is much discussion of declining sentencer confidence, but what does this mean and what is driving it? How does sentencers’ interaction with probation, and in particular their reliance on breach hearings to obtain a picture of offenders’ post-sentence progress impact their perceptions? 

Answering these questions will require the expertise of those closer to the sentencing process. Therefore we invite all those with insights – whether probation officers, sentencers, researchers or policymakers – to help us find the answer.

News From Probation Institute 6

It's been some time since we heard from the Probation Institute, so thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following communication:-

Dear Readers

On Monday 2nd July the Probation Institute hosted the third Probation Practitioner Conference at Resource for London followed by the Community Justice Portal Lecture. Richard Rowley very successfully organised the event with the cross sector Steering Group. Dr Wendy Fitzgibbon gave an inspiring and entertaining presentation using "Photo Voice" research into photography as a means of enhancing communication.

Our three key conference speakers were Jon Collins CEO of the Magistrates Association, Anne Fox CEO of Clinks and Sue Mountstevens PCC for Avon and Somerset. All three speakers shared positive aspirations for Probation but recognised that there are major challenges - in restoring sentencers' confidence, in re-engaging with the voluntary sector on a broader canvas and in becoming part of more integrated community facing locally commissioned services.

Ten break out sessions followed in which - from the perspectives of probation practitioners, voluntary organisations, researchers, sentencing and the Lammy Review from the PCCs office - all of these challenges were exemplified, informed and debated.

The final plenary session enabled practitioners to consider how they individually can contribute to bridging the gaps between NPS, CRCs and the voluntary sector and how they could use the event to support their own professional development moving forward.

This conference was a positive conversation between practitioners from all corners of rehabilitation. A number of important themes stood out;

1. Over emphasis on speed in the criminal justice process is damaging. In advising the courts on risk of reoffending and harm, and in advising on sentencing, a preoccupation with speed prevents report writers from bringing more comprehensive recommendations to the courts based on problem solving. Research findings from Scotland indicate that a fuller PSR is influential in increasing Community Sentences. If there is serious intent to try to reduce under 12 month sentences using well considered community alternatives, it seems unlikely that this could effectively be achieved using same day, verbal and down reports.

2. Confidence in community sentences has taken a (another) battering! Bad news is difficult to turn round and the excellent work of probation staff, commended at the conference by Sue Mountstevens, among others, is not being recognised and valued sufficiently at present. NPS is clearly working hard through the Effective Practice Division to reach out to CRCs, seeking and sharing good practice towards "Whole System Improvement". This is very much to be welcomed but a much greater collaborative effort to promote good news is needed. The Probation Institute together with organisations such as the Centre for Justice Innovation, the Magistrates Association, Revolving Doors and many others are keen to help.

3. The contribution to rehabilitation by the voluntary sector particularly the smaller organisations is getting lost in a sea of bureaucracy and barriers, supply chain coordinators, and rate cards. Anne Fox gave an excellent presentation describing what the voluntary sector can contribute, that it is not in competition with statutory services but lost 30% of its funding since TR and must look elsewhere for funding, potentially skewing it's outputs in the direction of new money.

4. The contribution of those with lived experience of criminal justice is increasingly understood. The next step is to better engage this contribution in co - production and building successful lives. The next Probation Institute Position Paper will be on the continuum of service user engagement, co-production and supporting entrepreneurs with lived experience.

The recent Select Committee Report on TR was one of the backdrops to the conference and the question of the future naturally arose in the plenary session. Asked for our opinion on the future and on any improvements that could be made to renewed contracts. the Probation Institute current position was described as follows,

• We do not believe that Probation Services should be delivered through a divided service.
• The Probation Institute is taking the opportunity to draw together a shopping list of improvements which should be made if there are to be new contracts. Our suggestions may echo some of the HMI standards for inspection but we would be looking for contractual requirements. We will be discussing these at a meeting with Directors and Fellows on 14th August, and our list is likely to include

• Regulation of training and qualifications for all probation practitioners and practice managers
• Establish a Regulatory Body to ensure consistency of training, qualifications and conduct, for equivalent roles in NPS and CRC
• Strengthen recruitment from diverse groups 
• Ensure that objectives and targets effectively address the causes of offending 
• Open up to greater transparency and less bureaucracy the routes to the CRC supply chains
• Strengthen requirements for service user engagement

If there is an opportunity to rethink TR, following the Select Committee report, and through the Labour Party Review, "solutions" must not be rushed this time and brave thinking is needed. Legislation is very much constrained by Brexit at present so that any changes within the next 2 years would probably need to be achievable within existing legislation. The Offender Management Act 2007 allows the Secretary of State to deliver probation services almost any way he or she wishes, but the scope of the OMA is unlikely to permit a completely new agency, for example. 

Local, devolved structures and local commissioning developed from CRC groupings seem attractive, particularly when articulated by a positive and thoughtful PCC. Any solutions which bring increased proximity to policing could risk compromising justice. How to avoid being squeezed through competing pressures for local resources? If there were savings from devolved structures, to whom would these accrue? Would it be professionally and politically sound for probation to move completely away from the prison service?

Reintegration through re-nationalisation has been much promoted particularly in the early post TR days. Setting aside the political aspects of this question we think it is an unlikely end state. We would like to hear more about the pros and cons of closer work with the Prison Service. Can this closer work be a real force for good? 

All of the strong and sound arguments in favour of reducing short term prison sentences recognise the dependency on robust community sentences as alternatives. The Secretary of State for Justice made strong statements about reducing the short term prison numbers this week. If steps are not taken to strengthen confidence in and resources for community sentences... here is another perfect storm waiting.