Unlike previous professional dilemma's this one does not relate to a specific incident but rather a series of observations I've made over the years. It's come about as a direct result of a conversation with two long standing friends and colleagues who have progressed to becoming managers. Over a drink and meal out, the conversation wandered onto the topic concerning the particular difficulties encountered by team managers in having to absorb all the crap from below, at the same time as getting it from above. As always, these conversations only ever serve to remind me how clever I have been in avoiding that particular elephant trap.
But then we got onto the serious bit about other colleagues we had known over the years and in particular the horror stories. I'm sure every field of endeavour has them. The people who are completely unsuited to the work; the lazy and bone idle; the dangerous and scary. I had sort of always assumed that management were aware of such people. After all, surely that was part of their job? It certainly never crossed my mind that it would have been in anyway appropriate to impart concerns or negative observations about colleagues to the manager. After all, we were all professionals and it felt so much like 'telling tales out of school'. Surely it said more about the messenger than the subject? I suppose my own insecurity meant that I would have been horrified to learn that I might be the subject one day?
As the conversation developed, my thoughts went back to the colleague that got a 'buzz' out of bullying young male clients. I could still see the look of glee on her face when she had succeeded in scaring them witless. The colleague who made clients lives hell and as a result they demanded to go to prison rather than ever see her again. The colleague who regularly refused to see clients who arrived 5 minutes late. The colleague who just couldn't be bothered. Sadly there had been quite a few 'wrong 'uns' over the years in my opinion.
Having shared these thoughts with my two manager friends I was genuinely surprised by their reaction. In perfect harmony they both intoned 'Oh you should have definitely told the manager'. Until then it had never ocurred to me to do such a thing. It would have seemed so disloyal. Although I was fairly clear the behaviour was unprofessional and didn't meet my standards of behaviour, it didn't seem to fit into any clear-cut disciplinary category of say inappropriate sexual relations with a client. This or similar I would have reported without hesitation. It was just very poor professional behaviour in my view, but surely the team manager can see it if I can?
I'm still not sure about this, even though I am acutely aware that some clients got a very raw deal indeed. Some went to prison who possibly shouldn't have done. Some have been turned off 'probation' for ever. But I would still find telling a manager a real professional dilemma.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Sunday, 10 April 2011
The Inspector Writes
This time it's Inspector Gadget and he's back in the Daily Mail with a spirited piece about what he feels is going wrong in the police service. He is of course the long-standing author of the hugely popular police blog that bears his name and who was accorded the enormous honour of getting a mention on last Friday's BBC 1 tv programme 'Have I Got News For You'.
Well he didn't exactly get the mention, but the badgers did who he says are often identified as being responsible for breaking into garden sheds. You know, the sort of fairytale world of unreality that once identified a bus company that didn't pick up passengers 'because the buses needed to run on time.' Well it seems that in order to 'massage' crime statistics, the badgers are sometimes unjustly blamed for burgling sheds. All this is of course part of the Blair legacy where what is said is far more important than what is done.
I have to say I have always recognised much of what the Inspector describes and have a huge amount of sympathy with him and his colleagues. Yes a lot of the canteen culture displayed daily in the blog comment section is sometimes worrying, annoying and boorish, but it does us all a great service in probably painting a more accurate picture of British policing today than any HMI report, Police Authority comment or Chief Constables assertions. In many ways the police have suffered from more political interference than probation over the last twenty years or so, with more to come in the form of the ridiculous replacement of Police Authorities with elected Police Commissioners. I think it was hugely worrying when Chief Constables were appointed on fixed term contracts instead of on the same basis as Judges by indefinite Crown Appointment.
Actually mention of the Judiciary brings me on to an area where I have to part company with the Inspector. I guess it would be surprising if the probation view of the world were exactly the same as the police view because we clearly inhabit very different parts of the Criminal Justice System. I always find it very disappointing and unhelpful when he has a regular 'pop' at the Courts for supposed inept or misguided sentencing, knowing very well that informed comment is notoriously difficult in the absence of full information. Sadly, just like politicians, the suspicion is often that the motive is to get attention from the right-wing press.
But it's not just having a 'go' at the Courts that concerns me, not least because they can't answer back, it's also about a chap called 'Billy.' This young man who is very well known to us all in the CJS is the source of much concern and heated debate. He has accumulated a vast number of previous convictions and whilst we bemoan him causing us enormous amounts of work and heartache, he is of course at the same time one of our best and most loyal customers. He might be reviled by the police, but paradoxically he helps to pay all our wages and ensures the mortgage is covered each month.
Of course it could be said that it's just the job of the police to keep catching 'Billy' and hand him over to the Courts and probation service to try and stop him. True this is not a simple process and patently we only have limited success, but it is mainly our sphere of endeavour, not that of the police. We need to keep saying that the simplistic response of just locking 'Billy' up for ever-lengthening periods does not and will not work.
Politicians like Ken Clarke have now dared to say this and face down the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' brigade and usher in some different thinking along the lines of addressing the underlying issues. It will be hugely controversial and there are dark forces within his own party who are still campaigning to get Ken Clarke 'reshuffled', but the tide has turned due to the pragmatic need to save money. I would have preferred to have won the battle on the basis of professional argument, but that's politics for you.
Well he didn't exactly get the mention, but the badgers did who he says are often identified as being responsible for breaking into garden sheds. You know, the sort of fairytale world of unreality that once identified a bus company that didn't pick up passengers 'because the buses needed to run on time.' Well it seems that in order to 'massage' crime statistics, the badgers are sometimes unjustly blamed for burgling sheds. All this is of course part of the Blair legacy where what is said is far more important than what is done.
I have to say I have always recognised much of what the Inspector describes and have a huge amount of sympathy with him and his colleagues. Yes a lot of the canteen culture displayed daily in the blog comment section is sometimes worrying, annoying and boorish, but it does us all a great service in probably painting a more accurate picture of British policing today than any HMI report, Police Authority comment or Chief Constables assertions. In many ways the police have suffered from more political interference than probation over the last twenty years or so, with more to come in the form of the ridiculous replacement of Police Authorities with elected Police Commissioners. I think it was hugely worrying when Chief Constables were appointed on fixed term contracts instead of on the same basis as Judges by indefinite Crown Appointment.
Actually mention of the Judiciary brings me on to an area where I have to part company with the Inspector. I guess it would be surprising if the probation view of the world were exactly the same as the police view because we clearly inhabit very different parts of the Criminal Justice System. I always find it very disappointing and unhelpful when he has a regular 'pop' at the Courts for supposed inept or misguided sentencing, knowing very well that informed comment is notoriously difficult in the absence of full information. Sadly, just like politicians, the suspicion is often that the motive is to get attention from the right-wing press.
But it's not just having a 'go' at the Courts that concerns me, not least because they can't answer back, it's also about a chap called 'Billy.' This young man who is very well known to us all in the CJS is the source of much concern and heated debate. He has accumulated a vast number of previous convictions and whilst we bemoan him causing us enormous amounts of work and heartache, he is of course at the same time one of our best and most loyal customers. He might be reviled by the police, but paradoxically he helps to pay all our wages and ensures the mortgage is covered each month.
Of course it could be said that it's just the job of the police to keep catching 'Billy' and hand him over to the Courts and probation service to try and stop him. True this is not a simple process and patently we only have limited success, but it is mainly our sphere of endeavour, not that of the police. We need to keep saying that the simplistic response of just locking 'Billy' up for ever-lengthening periods does not and will not work.
Politicians like Ken Clarke have now dared to say this and face down the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' brigade and usher in some different thinking along the lines of addressing the underlying issues. It will be hugely controversial and there are dark forces within his own party who are still campaigning to get Ken Clarke 'reshuffled', but the tide has turned due to the pragmatic need to save money. I would have preferred to have won the battle on the basis of professional argument, but that's politics for you.
Friday, 8 April 2011
The Inspector Speaks
I'm grateful to Mike for pointing me in the direction of the House of Commons Justice Select Committee and the oral evidence given to it on March 29th by HM Chief Inspector of Probation Andrew Bridges. This in effect is his swansong as he is retiring in May and although his performance could be described as somewhat pedestrian, his measured tones deliver quite a lot and is worthy of taking a look at.
Even though we all know it, I still felt shocked when almost his opening remark concerning the creation of NOMS was the throwaway line that 'we might as well admit that probation was taken over by the prison service.' He said it had been a great sadness, he wouldn't have done it, but he wouldn't reverse it now either. He made the point that all the changes that probation had suffered meant that senior management had been too concerned with managing upwards at the expense of effectively managing downwards. In effect that all change has a cost. He felt that overall prison management had been better at financial management, but that the move to Trust status had been beneficial for the Probation Service in preparing it for the new environment of contestability.
I found it encouraging to hear the Inspector confirming that it is the one-to-one relationship between officer and client that remains key to the effectiveness of the work, although he was critical of cases where it seemed like the client was running things and not the officer. Now I think I would say that it has been an awfully long time since Mr Bridges was a main grade officer and to be honest the exponential growth in drug addiction has changed the whole landscape of probation work beyond recognition since his day. It is nigh on impossible in my view to have any kind of effective control over a chaotic drug user.
It was interesting to hear the Inspector discussing the three core aims of the Service and just how difficult it is to measure effectiveness sensibly, especially as we move towards an environment of Payment by Results. We had to deliver the sentence of the court, try and deliver a non-offending outcome and protect the public, but as he pointed out, results might not be felt for quite some time and were therefore difficult to measure. He went on to say it was possibly better to concentrate on 'interim outcomes' and at this point I found my mind wandering back to the days of Geoffrey Parkinson who famously got into serious trouble for suggesting he tried to persuade a bank robber to do some benefit fraud instead.
In essence the Inspector said that he felt that future for Probation was positive, but I have to say he didn't really sound that convincing. He did say however that he could see no problem in Probation Trusts being able to commission services as well as provide them. The more I think about this, the more I'm of the view this might be the very key to our survival. I notice that the Probation Association have been quite emphatic about this in their response to Ken Clarke's Green Paper.
In order to ensure local accountability, commissioning must be by Trusts and not by NOMS centralised management. I can see quite an internal fight over this, but possibly the dismantling of the NOMS regional structure will help win the argument. I think it's worth bearing in mind that Local Authorities have been in this situation for years and they both commission and provide services.
Even though we all know it, I still felt shocked when almost his opening remark concerning the creation of NOMS was the throwaway line that 'we might as well admit that probation was taken over by the prison service.' He said it had been a great sadness, he wouldn't have done it, but he wouldn't reverse it now either. He made the point that all the changes that probation had suffered meant that senior management had been too concerned with managing upwards at the expense of effectively managing downwards. In effect that all change has a cost. He felt that overall prison management had been better at financial management, but that the move to Trust status had been beneficial for the Probation Service in preparing it for the new environment of contestability.
I found it encouraging to hear the Inspector confirming that it is the one-to-one relationship between officer and client that remains key to the effectiveness of the work, although he was critical of cases where it seemed like the client was running things and not the officer. Now I think I would say that it has been an awfully long time since Mr Bridges was a main grade officer and to be honest the exponential growth in drug addiction has changed the whole landscape of probation work beyond recognition since his day. It is nigh on impossible in my view to have any kind of effective control over a chaotic drug user.
It was interesting to hear the Inspector discussing the three core aims of the Service and just how difficult it is to measure effectiveness sensibly, especially as we move towards an environment of Payment by Results. We had to deliver the sentence of the court, try and deliver a non-offending outcome and protect the public, but as he pointed out, results might not be felt for quite some time and were therefore difficult to measure. He went on to say it was possibly better to concentrate on 'interim outcomes' and at this point I found my mind wandering back to the days of Geoffrey Parkinson who famously got into serious trouble for suggesting he tried to persuade a bank robber to do some benefit fraud instead.
In essence the Inspector said that he felt that future for Probation was positive, but I have to say he didn't really sound that convincing. He did say however that he could see no problem in Probation Trusts being able to commission services as well as provide them. The more I think about this, the more I'm of the view this might be the very key to our survival. I notice that the Probation Association have been quite emphatic about this in their response to Ken Clarke's Green Paper.
In order to ensure local accountability, commissioning must be by Trusts and not by NOMS centralised management. I can see quite an internal fight over this, but possibly the dismantling of the NOMS regional structure will help win the argument. I think it's worth bearing in mind that Local Authorities have been in this situation for years and they both commission and provide services.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Having a Laugh
When I started out as a probation officer you sort of just learnt on the job. All new recruits were issued with a copy of 'The Probation Officers Handbook' by a chap called Jarvis and I well remember my placement supervisor telling that he looked at his copy daily. I never did find out if he was being ironic or not, but my one and only glance at Jarvis confirmed that it was well out of date and I consigned my copy to the history section of my bookcase.
I soon found out that more useful information could be gleaned from the 'Practice Handbook' handily provided in ring binder form so you never knew if you had the up-to-date version or not. It really didn't seem to matter though as we just got on with the job in hand. But then in the new age of managerialism things began to change. I think the first bad omen was a document entitled Statement of National Objectives and Priorities. Things went down hill from then on, until reaching the absolute pits as enshrined in 'National Standards'.
If memory serves me correctly this was quite a hefty ring-bound tome stretching to several hundred pages of closely typed instructions for just about any situation. Colleagues roughly divided into two groups at the point the damned thing was introduced; those that consigned it quietly unopened to the top or rear of their filing cabinet and those that avidly consumed its content on a daily basis. I've even seen some, newer colleagues it has to be said, taking the damned thing in with them to interview clients. I even once saw a copy under someones arm on a prison visit for goodness sake. Without doubt many, including managers, found the document a safe haven, a reliable friend and a comfort when all around appeared to be chaos. No matter what the problem was, for some colleagues the oft-heard refrain became 'lets see what does national standards say?'
Well, a lot of people are going to be very uncomfortable indeed when they catch up with the latest version of 'National Standards' effective from 5th April and to be found here on the Ministry of Justice website. When I first had a glance I assumed it was a spoof issued on 1st April, but no it is completely genuine and runs to a whole three pages. As to content, whoever wrote it must have been under the influence of some kind of mind-altering substance. They were having a laugh, surely?
Lets quote an example, say in relation to Unpaid Work. According to the new National Standards "The offender is prepared for the unpaid work requirement" it goes on to say "The offender undertakes the unpaid work requirement" Simples!
Now you might think I've been selective in quoting, but take a look yourself and pretty much each section says the same - you could write it yourself it's that easy - under supervision the document states "The offender is prepared for the supervision requirement" and then says "The offender undertakes the supervision requirement"
It all serves to illustrate just what a cultural change is going on in government at the behest of the private sector. The big boys made it plain they were not interested in bidding for work if they were expected to abide by all the micro-management nonsense contained in National Standards, so government obliged and tore it up. There will be little problem complying with the new version. Whilst old-style officers will sigh with relief and say 'I told you so', newer colleagues are going to have to learn how to use a bit more judgement and discretion in the way they manage their cases from now on.
I soon found out that more useful information could be gleaned from the 'Practice Handbook' handily provided in ring binder form so you never knew if you had the up-to-date version or not. It really didn't seem to matter though as we just got on with the job in hand. But then in the new age of managerialism things began to change. I think the first bad omen was a document entitled Statement of National Objectives and Priorities. Things went down hill from then on, until reaching the absolute pits as enshrined in 'National Standards'.
If memory serves me correctly this was quite a hefty ring-bound tome stretching to several hundred pages of closely typed instructions for just about any situation. Colleagues roughly divided into two groups at the point the damned thing was introduced; those that consigned it quietly unopened to the top or rear of their filing cabinet and those that avidly consumed its content on a daily basis. I've even seen some, newer colleagues it has to be said, taking the damned thing in with them to interview clients. I even once saw a copy under someones arm on a prison visit for goodness sake. Without doubt many, including managers, found the document a safe haven, a reliable friend and a comfort when all around appeared to be chaos. No matter what the problem was, for some colleagues the oft-heard refrain became 'lets see what does national standards say?'
Well, a lot of people are going to be very uncomfortable indeed when they catch up with the latest version of 'National Standards' effective from 5th April and to be found here on the Ministry of Justice website. When I first had a glance I assumed it was a spoof issued on 1st April, but no it is completely genuine and runs to a whole three pages. As to content, whoever wrote it must have been under the influence of some kind of mind-altering substance. They were having a laugh, surely?
Lets quote an example, say in relation to Unpaid Work. According to the new National Standards "The offender is prepared for the unpaid work requirement" it goes on to say "The offender undertakes the unpaid work requirement" Simples!
Now you might think I've been selective in quoting, but take a look yourself and pretty much each section says the same - you could write it yourself it's that easy - under supervision the document states "The offender is prepared for the supervision requirement" and then says "The offender undertakes the supervision requirement"
It all serves to illustrate just what a cultural change is going on in government at the behest of the private sector. The big boys made it plain they were not interested in bidding for work if they were expected to abide by all the micro-management nonsense contained in National Standards, so government obliged and tore it up. There will be little problem complying with the new version. Whilst old-style officers will sigh with relief and say 'I told you so', newer colleagues are going to have to learn how to use a bit more judgement and discretion in the way they manage their cases from now on.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Justice Liverpool Style
I had very mixed feelings when I initially heard about 'Justice' the new Liverpool-based daytime drama series on BBC1, but set the video recorder anyway (remember VCR's?) It's based on the real life experimental North Liverpool Community Justice Centre set up in 2005 by Lord Falconer and the last Labour government. Supposedly the idea came from government visits to a community court in Red Hook Brooklyn. All criminal justice agencies are co-located in the one building with the court room, together with community groups and charitable bodies that might be able to assist offenders.
Goodness knows what the public at large will make of the court room scenes as this series progresses over 50 episodes because as far as I know it is an absolutely unique situation. In real life the full time incumbent is His Honour Judge David Fletcher who sits five days a week alone, unrobed and convening as either a Youth, Magistrates or Crown Court. A further experimental innovation involves so called 'problem-solving' meetings following a guilty plea. In essence it seems to be a mechanism for the Judge to be able to tease out the information that would normally be contained in a probation pre-sentence report before passing sentence. Yet more innovation involves the ability to order progress reports during the course of community sentences and either vary or revoke them.
Strangely enough just as this BBC drama series starts, there is doubt over the future of the experiment that it's based on due to spending cuts at the Ministry of Justice. Even the last government showed no signs of replicating the idea because they said it 'cost too much'. A piece of recent research entitled 'Doing Justice Locally' by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies concludes that there seems to be insufficient data to be able to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of the centre. This seems a great shame because from what I've seen it's an experiment worth persevering with for awhile yet. It strikes me that in such a set up a pro-active probation service input could have dramatic results, but I don't see much mention of probation in the report at all.
I almost forgot the programme. Based on two episodes so far it all seems sadly too far-fetched to be believable I'm afraid. A Judge 'rolling his own', wearing a pork-pie hat, roaming around the community sticking his nose into all sorts of matters that would surely prejudice any court hearing? I don't think so, unless I hadn't noticed he's been given Investigating Magistrate powers French-style as well. It's sad really as this silly aspect of the drama will inevitably distract from the inevitable powerful story lines such as child exploitation, prostitution, drug addiction, etc, etc. I can't help feeling this should really have been a probation drama, because as we know probation can legitimately go snooping around asking questions, but we'll just have to keep waiting for that.
Goodness knows what the public at large will make of the court room scenes as this series progresses over 50 episodes because as far as I know it is an absolutely unique situation. In real life the full time incumbent is His Honour Judge David Fletcher who sits five days a week alone, unrobed and convening as either a Youth, Magistrates or Crown Court. A further experimental innovation involves so called 'problem-solving' meetings following a guilty plea. In essence it seems to be a mechanism for the Judge to be able to tease out the information that would normally be contained in a probation pre-sentence report before passing sentence. Yet more innovation involves the ability to order progress reports during the course of community sentences and either vary or revoke them.
Strangely enough just as this BBC drama series starts, there is doubt over the future of the experiment that it's based on due to spending cuts at the Ministry of Justice. Even the last government showed no signs of replicating the idea because they said it 'cost too much'. A piece of recent research entitled 'Doing Justice Locally' by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies concludes that there seems to be insufficient data to be able to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of the centre. This seems a great shame because from what I've seen it's an experiment worth persevering with for awhile yet. It strikes me that in such a set up a pro-active probation service input could have dramatic results, but I don't see much mention of probation in the report at all.
I almost forgot the programme. Based on two episodes so far it all seems sadly too far-fetched to be believable I'm afraid. A Judge 'rolling his own', wearing a pork-pie hat, roaming around the community sticking his nose into all sorts of matters that would surely prejudice any court hearing? I don't think so, unless I hadn't noticed he's been given Investigating Magistrate powers French-style as well. It's sad really as this silly aspect of the drama will inevitably distract from the inevitable powerful story lines such as child exploitation, prostitution, drug addiction, etc, etc. I can't help feeling this should really have been a probation drama, because as we know probation can legitimately go snooping around asking questions, but we'll just have to keep waiting for that.
Tuesday, 5 April 2011
Thoughts on a Difficult Case
Following on from my recent piece about Jon Venables, it would seem that the news item was merely the curtain raiser for the subsequent main article in the Sunday Times Magazine last Sunday 3rd April. Written by David James Smith, the author of The Sleep of Reason : The James Bulger Case, one cannot help but feel the timing is designed to try and influence the Parole process later this year.
Reading the article with dismay, I was particularly concerned at the level of information the journalist has supposedly amassed and I couldn't help but speculate how he seems to be able to quote verbatim from confidential running sheets, contact logs and internal reports? I find this quite shocking and a serious breach of confidentiality and professional practice by someone very close to a current case. So yet more information is now out in the public domain thus sadly serving to make a difficult case even more so. The main thesis of this article - which is behind the Murdoch paywall of course - is that the whole rehabilitation process has been chaotic. Of course not being involved it's very difficult if not impossible to say, but several things struck me as I read the article.
This case serves to highlight the complete separation of services between child and adult, between Social Services and Probation, between YOI and adult Prison. With hindsight it was extremely unfortunate that, having on the one hand successfully had the earlier 15 year tariff set aside in order to try and avoid the trauma of transfer to adult prison, the trauma of release came just at the point of the transfer of responsibility to the adult Probation Service. Now I can't be sure at what stage this occurred because this case has never been treated 'normally' at all. For instance there was never a transfer to YOI but very unusually Jon was kept at the Secure Unit instead. However, there will have been a transfer of responsibility and no doubt it will have been very unsettling for all concerned, not least Jon.
Of course all this confirms the absolute necessity of establishing and maintaining the
relationship between client and supervising officer. In lifer cases it was always felt to be good practice that the officer had a 'pair', ideally of the opposite sex in order to bring a different perspective as well as to try and ensure continuity. This will have been even more important in a case like this involving issues of abnormal development, arrested adolescence and transition into adulthood. I would suggest that continuity of supervising officers would be absolutely vital not only in developing good professional and trusting relationships, but also in being able to more accurately assess risk.
It also reminds me as to exactly why it was felt appropriate that probation officers had a social work background. Like it or not, much of our 'offending behaviour' work with clients takes us into issues of welfare and emotional needs for which we are becoming increasingly ill-equipped.
Finally, I can't help noticing that the author continues to use the politically correct term of Offender Manager instead of Probation Officer. In a case like this I would have expected it to be handled by a very experienced pair of hands and not at all suitable for a Probation Services Officer. However you just never know nowadays and of course Offender Manager can mean either.
Reading the article with dismay, I was particularly concerned at the level of information the journalist has supposedly amassed and I couldn't help but speculate how he seems to be able to quote verbatim from confidential running sheets, contact logs and internal reports? I find this quite shocking and a serious breach of confidentiality and professional practice by someone very close to a current case. So yet more information is now out in the public domain thus sadly serving to make a difficult case even more so. The main thesis of this article - which is behind the Murdoch paywall of course - is that the whole rehabilitation process has been chaotic. Of course not being involved it's very difficult if not impossible to say, but several things struck me as I read the article.
This case serves to highlight the complete separation of services between child and adult, between Social Services and Probation, between YOI and adult Prison. With hindsight it was extremely unfortunate that, having on the one hand successfully had the earlier 15 year tariff set aside in order to try and avoid the trauma of transfer to adult prison, the trauma of release came just at the point of the transfer of responsibility to the adult Probation Service. Now I can't be sure at what stage this occurred because this case has never been treated 'normally' at all. For instance there was never a transfer to YOI but very unusually Jon was kept at the Secure Unit instead. However, there will have been a transfer of responsibility and no doubt it will have been very unsettling for all concerned, not least Jon.
Of course all this confirms the absolute necessity of establishing and maintaining the
relationship between client and supervising officer. In lifer cases it was always felt to be good practice that the officer had a 'pair', ideally of the opposite sex in order to bring a different perspective as well as to try and ensure continuity. This will have been even more important in a case like this involving issues of abnormal development, arrested adolescence and transition into adulthood. I would suggest that continuity of supervising officers would be absolutely vital not only in developing good professional and trusting relationships, but also in being able to more accurately assess risk.
It also reminds me as to exactly why it was felt appropriate that probation officers had a social work background. Like it or not, much of our 'offending behaviour' work with clients takes us into issues of welfare and emotional needs for which we are becoming increasingly ill-equipped.
Finally, I can't help noticing that the author continues to use the politically correct term of Offender Manager instead of Probation Officer. In a case like this I would have expected it to be handled by a very experienced pair of hands and not at all suitable for a Probation Services Officer. However you just never know nowadays and of course Offender Manager can mean either.
Monday, 4 April 2011
Confusing
As usual I tuned in to the Andrew Marr BBC 1 programme on Sunday morning but was surprised to hear the shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper uttering that phrase made famous by Tony Blair "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." Now I have to admit I find her one of the most irritating of modern-day politicians and was very disappointed to see that only her husband featured in that days Sunday Times poll that unquestionably put Peter Mandelson at the top.
Anyway, it took me genuinely by surprise as I thought that particular mantra had recently been pronounced as officially dead by Sadiq Khan the Labour shadow justice secretary? As this article from the Daily Telegraph dated 7th March shows, Khan had plainly stated that "Labour had got it wrong in trying to be tough on crime." The implication was that this was indeed the view of Ed Milliband and hence presumably the Shadow Cabinet. But according to this article in the Guardian dated three days later, Yvette Cooper has made it plain that Labour is still firmly behind Tony's rhetoric. I guess there's not really any great rush to clarify things anytime soon, but it would be good to know what HM Oppositions view actually is I suppose.
Anyway, it took me genuinely by surprise as I thought that particular mantra had recently been pronounced as officially dead by Sadiq Khan the Labour shadow justice secretary? As this article from the Daily Telegraph dated 7th March shows, Khan had plainly stated that "Labour had got it wrong in trying to be tough on crime." The implication was that this was indeed the view of Ed Milliband and hence presumably the Shadow Cabinet. But according to this article in the Guardian dated three days later, Yvette Cooper has made it plain that Labour is still firmly behind Tony's rhetoric. I guess there's not really any great rush to clarify things anytime soon, but it would be good to know what HM Oppositions view actually is I suppose.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Doncaster in the Lead
Alongside the news that Ken Clarke has taken the decision to privatise the first state-run prison by giving the HMP Birmingham contract to G4S, he also decided to renew Serco's contract in respect of HMP and YOI Doncaster. This is now set to be the first and hence flagship project in testing if a Payment by Result scheme will work in terms of running a whole prison.
Since construction by the Prison Service in 1994, 'Doncatraz' as it is affectionately known locally has been operated by the multi-national private company Serco. They have just been awarded a further 15 year contract by the Ministry of Justice, but this time a proportion of their fee will be linked to a reduction in offending by prisoners following release. Although the contract is worth £250 million, £25 million of that will only be paid if the one year re-offending rate of offenders released falls by 5 per cent. But they will be in line for a bonus if the the reduction reaches 10 per cent. Judging by their stated aim of a "15 per cent reduction in crime by 2008" it looks like they've been preparing for this type of contract for some time.
Now Serco and the government must be feeling pretty confident to have agreed such a deal as clearly it is very much in both parties interest to see that it works. Despite having had quite a bad reputation for bullying, I notice that the Director John Biggin was named as Public Servant of the Year in 2010, partly in recognition of his efforts in improving performance. I think this is no mean achievement seeing that he works for a private company, the award is sponsored by Unison and arranged by the Guardian newspaper!
It's interesting that Serco have chosen two new voluntary sector partners to work with them in trying to win this cash, Turning Point the former purely drug treatment charity and Catch 22 another charity working with young people. These are two further examples of how charities are repositioning themselves in order to benefit from the developing market in contract offender work. Catch 22 is the result of an amalgamation and it's particularly ironic that one of their distant constituent bodies was the original London Police Court Mission. Of course in 1907 the staff that worked for them became none other than probation officers. The wheel of history takes another fascinating turn.
Of course one of the major problems with this PbR idea is how the payment gets to the right agency that supposedly affected the change. A glance at the Doncaster prison website shows that they already have a well-established re-settlement programme running with partners like the Bridge Project. It will be fascinating to see how the bureaucracy will be developed so that payment gets apportioned fairly given the number of agencies involved. It should be noted that there is absolutely no mention of probation being involved in any of this.
Since construction by the Prison Service in 1994, 'Doncatraz' as it is affectionately known locally has been operated by the multi-national private company Serco. They have just been awarded a further 15 year contract by the Ministry of Justice, but this time a proportion of their fee will be linked to a reduction in offending by prisoners following release. Although the contract is worth £250 million, £25 million of that will only be paid if the one year re-offending rate of offenders released falls by 5 per cent. But they will be in line for a bonus if the the reduction reaches 10 per cent. Judging by their stated aim of a "15 per cent reduction in crime by 2008" it looks like they've been preparing for this type of contract for some time.
Now Serco and the government must be feeling pretty confident to have agreed such a deal as clearly it is very much in both parties interest to see that it works. Despite having had quite a bad reputation for bullying, I notice that the Director John Biggin was named as Public Servant of the Year in 2010, partly in recognition of his efforts in improving performance. I think this is no mean achievement seeing that he works for a private company, the award is sponsored by Unison and arranged by the Guardian newspaper!
It's interesting that Serco have chosen two new voluntary sector partners to work with them in trying to win this cash, Turning Point the former purely drug treatment charity and Catch 22 another charity working with young people. These are two further examples of how charities are repositioning themselves in order to benefit from the developing market in contract offender work. Catch 22 is the result of an amalgamation and it's particularly ironic that one of their distant constituent bodies was the original London Police Court Mission. Of course in 1907 the staff that worked for them became none other than probation officers. The wheel of history takes another fascinating turn.
Of course one of the major problems with this PbR idea is how the payment gets to the right agency that supposedly affected the change. A glance at the Doncaster prison website shows that they already have a well-established re-settlement programme running with partners like the Bridge Project. It will be fascinating to see how the bureaucracy will be developed so that payment gets apportioned fairly given the number of agencies involved. It should be noted that there is absolutely no mention of probation being involved in any of this.
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Why Did He Do It?
It must be a huge relief to everyone living in South London that Delroy Grant, the so-called Night Stalker, has been convicted of several rapes and a number of burglaries. He always attacked at night and often targetted elderly women. It has subsequently emerged that he was responsible for 203 similar offences, but the total number of victims may exceed 500 as police strongly suspect that many victims of burglaries were too ashamed to reveal they had been sexually assaulted.
Grant decided to plead not guilty to all charges and in the eyes of many concocted a ridiculous defence saying his former estranged wife had stored his body fluids and planted them at all the crime scenes. After the conviction, Commander Foy, head of homicide and serious crime at Scotland Yard described Grant as “perverted, callous and violent”.
He said that his crimes were among the worst ever investigated by Scotland Yard and added:
“For a period between 1992 and 2009 he preyed on elderly people in south-east London, violating them and their homes, and causing deep distress and trauma to his victims and their families. He was also feared by many people living in the same communities and it is not too dramatic to say when he was caught thousands of people in south east London were able to switch out their lights and go to sleep without the dreadful thought they would be preyed upon by Grant. He is a perverted, callous and violent individual who is a sexual predator, rapist and nigh-time burgler who preyed on the elderly. There may be some speculation, even fascination, as to who he is, how he operated and what drove him to commit such crimes".
The judge in this case made it clear that he had considered imposing a 'whole life' tariff in relation to the four life sentences he handed down, but in the end specified a minimum term of 27 years before consideration of parole. Not unusually the judge adjourned over night before passing sentence, possibly to allow himself time to reflect. But, as the police officer said, 'who is he and what drove him to commit such crimes?'
There are a whole range of sound reasons why that question needs to be answered but in my view the process has not been assisted by the judge deciding not to order psychiatric reports prior to announcing sentence. As I have explained previously, in cases such as this there is no probation pre sentence report, but rather a post life sentence report prepared a few weeks following sentence.
It may be that part of the answer to the question lies within the orbit of Personality Disorder but in the absence of expert reports we are not going to know. It's just possible that reports had been prepared during his remand in custody and pre conviction, but there is no mention of this in press coverage and such reports may not have been agreed to by his defence team. As always in very serious cases like this, I worry about a lack of psychiatric assessment that could provide a medical diagnosis and indicate detention at a Special Hospital as being appropriate.
Grant decided to plead not guilty to all charges and in the eyes of many concocted a ridiculous defence saying his former estranged wife had stored his body fluids and planted them at all the crime scenes. After the conviction, Commander Foy, head of homicide and serious crime at Scotland Yard described Grant as “perverted, callous and violent”.
He said that his crimes were among the worst ever investigated by Scotland Yard and added:
“For a period between 1992 and 2009 he preyed on elderly people in south-east London, violating them and their homes, and causing deep distress and trauma to his victims and their families. He was also feared by many people living in the same communities and it is not too dramatic to say when he was caught thousands of people in south east London were able to switch out their lights and go to sleep without the dreadful thought they would be preyed upon by Grant. He is a perverted, callous and violent individual who is a sexual predator, rapist and nigh-time burgler who preyed on the elderly. There may be some speculation, even fascination, as to who he is, how he operated and what drove him to commit such crimes".
The judge in this case made it clear that he had considered imposing a 'whole life' tariff in relation to the four life sentences he handed down, but in the end specified a minimum term of 27 years before consideration of parole. Not unusually the judge adjourned over night before passing sentence, possibly to allow himself time to reflect. But, as the police officer said, 'who is he and what drove him to commit such crimes?'
There are a whole range of sound reasons why that question needs to be answered but in my view the process has not been assisted by the judge deciding not to order psychiatric reports prior to announcing sentence. As I have explained previously, in cases such as this there is no probation pre sentence report, but rather a post life sentence report prepared a few weeks following sentence.
It may be that part of the answer to the question lies within the orbit of Personality Disorder but in the absence of expert reports we are not going to know. It's just possible that reports had been prepared during his remand in custody and pre conviction, but there is no mention of this in press coverage and such reports may not have been agreed to by his defence team. As always in very serious cases like this, I worry about a lack of psychiatric assessment that could provide a medical diagnosis and indicate detention at a Special Hospital as being appropriate.
Friday, 1 April 2011
How Others See Us
According to their website, the Johnson Partnership describes itself "As the largest criminal firm in England and Wales, we cover the entire country and have lawyers specialising in every area of criminal law practice". They go on to say they "have teams of criminal defence solicitors in Nottingham, Derby, Mansfield and Chesterfield". Not quite the geographic spread I was expecting for a practice that covers the 'entire country' but then they seem to be an outfit that takes some pride in handling various aspects of Prison Law and especially Recall.
What particularly caught my attention and brought me up with a start is their view of the modern-day Probation Service
"The changing role of the Probation Service has meant that many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer. More people than ever are being recalled to Prison for alleged breaches of licence. As some of the periods of recall are for no more than 4 weeks, it is hard for Prisoners to overturn a misguided decision for their recall to Prison.
At The Johnson Partnership our Prison Law team have successfully appealed a number of decisions to recall Prisoners on licence, either because there has in fact been no breach of licence conditions, or because a more appropriate course of action should have been taken by the Probation Service".
Trying to drum up business is fair enough, but surely it's going a bit too far to say that "many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer".
Whilst rooting around on their website I was interested to read about their success in 'Cutting Parole Board red tape". They explain that
"Jessica Rogers, who joined The Johnson Partnership in March 2010, has had the unprecedented accolade of having an article published in “Inside Time”, the national newspaper for prisoners. Jessica has been successful in short circuiting the customary process for moving IPP prisoners to open prison conditions. By making representations directly to the Ministry of Justice, rather than pursuing the usual cumbersome Parole Board process, she has met with speedy and spectacular success".
For all those colleagues who have IPP cases on their caseload, the short piece is worth reading in full, especially as it concludes with the astounding statement that
"By actively pursuing the Ministry of Justice route, Jess has been able to achieve the best results in the shortest possible time. The expensive, lengthy, frustrating bureaucratic Parole Board process could become a thing of the past for model prisoners with positive future plans".
Blimey!
What particularly caught my attention and brought me up with a start is their view of the modern-day Probation Service
"The changing role of the Probation Service has meant that many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer. More people than ever are being recalled to Prison for alleged breaches of licence. As some of the periods of recall are for no more than 4 weeks, it is hard for Prisoners to overturn a misguided decision for their recall to Prison.
At The Johnson Partnership our Prison Law team have successfully appealed a number of decisions to recall Prisoners on licence, either because there has in fact been no breach of licence conditions, or because a more appropriate course of action should have been taken by the Probation Service".
Trying to drum up business is fair enough, but surely it's going a bit too far to say that "many prisoners released on Parole are faced with Probation Officers who feel more like the worst kind of Police Officer".
Whilst rooting around on their website I was interested to read about their success in 'Cutting Parole Board red tape". They explain that
"Jessica Rogers, who joined The Johnson Partnership in March 2010, has had the unprecedented accolade of having an article published in “Inside Time”, the national newspaper for prisoners. Jessica has been successful in short circuiting the customary process for moving IPP prisoners to open prison conditions. By making representations directly to the Ministry of Justice, rather than pursuing the usual cumbersome Parole Board process, she has met with speedy and spectacular success".
For all those colleagues who have IPP cases on their caseload, the short piece is worth reading in full, especially as it concludes with the astounding statement that
"By actively pursuing the Ministry of Justice route, Jess has been able to achieve the best results in the shortest possible time. The expensive, lengthy, frustrating bureaucratic Parole Board process could become a thing of the past for model prisoners with positive future plans".
Blimey!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)