MoJ Proved Wrong

We've covered the astonishing decision by the MoJ to defund Circles of Support and Accountability before and this evaluation report serves to confirm just how bad decision-making is at Marsham Street:-

An Evaluation of the ‘Completing the Circle’ Project 

On 25th November 2020 Circles UK hosted a seminar to launch the results of an in-depth, independent evaluation study undertaken by a research team at the Sexual Offences, Crime and Misconduct Research Unit (SOCMRU), Nottingham Trent University. The evaluation study captured the findings of a four-year project entitled ‘Completing the Circle: A Community Approach to Reducing Sexual Abuse.’ Over 100 participants attended the event, representing agencies and organisations from countries as far afield as Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand. 

What was the Completing the Circle Project? 

Loneliness, isolation, and alienation are known high risk factors for sexual recidivism. Circles are a unique programme for reducing these risks. Circles work with high-risk sexual harm causers to augment stretched statutory provision for this group of offenders and so help prevent further sexual abuse. 

In a Circle, 4-6 local Volunteers work with an individual who has been assessed as a high risk. The ‘Circle’ meets for at least 12 months. The person who has committed a sexual offence/s – known as the Core Member – is supported by the Volunteers to reintegrate safely into the community. The Volunteers also hold him/her/they accountable for their past and future behaviours. 

In 2015 the National Lottery Community Fund awarded a grant of £2,040,394 to a consortium of Circle Providers brought together and led by Circles UK. The Consortium was tasked to establish delivery in parts of the country where Circles did not exist. These areas were Merseyside, London, Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Northamptonshire. 

Outcomes 

Results were impressive. In just over four years, Circles Providers were set up in all previously ‘un-served’ areas, 188 Circles were delivered and almost 800 Volunteers were recruited, trained, and supervised. Together these Volunteers spent nearly 40,000 hours engaged in Circle activities. Qualitative results, drawing from a thematic analysis of reports compiled at the end of each Circle, along with interviews with a sample of key participants, produced evidence which markedly illustrated the complexities surrounding the Core Member client group, the individualised and distinctly ‘person centred’ character of the Circles model and the skill and tenacity demonstrated by Volunteers.

A number of statistically significant findings were also identified: 

• Risk Reduced 

The risk of sexual reoffending presented by Core Members declined. Shifts in dynamic risk factors were measured using an established tool called the Dynamic Risk Review (DRR). Analysis revealed that the risk associated with ‘dynamic’, changeable variables reduced after three months involvement with a Circle, with further dynamic risk reductions over time. Impressively, Core Members in the study demonstrated an 18% reduction in dynamic risk scores over the course of their Circle.

These incremental reductions in dynamic risk over time reinforce a long-established understanding that effecting change among the serious sexual harm causers targeted by Circles requires time, commitment, and persistence. There is no ‘short fix’ when it comes to supporting Core Members to alter damaging and often deeply entrenched behaviours. However, relationships developed over a prolonged period have a demonstrable and positive effect. 

• Reintegration Improved 

Protective factors known to inhibit the risk of sexual recidivism also showed significant improvement across a range of variables, including accommodation, the number of stable, emotional relationships, employment and purposeful activities and hobbies. 

After only 3 months on a Circle: 

• 96% of Core Members were in stable and suitable accommodation; this increased to 100% at 9 months. 

• 26% of Core Members were in paid or voluntary employment; this increased to 42% at 9 months.

• Wellbeing Increased 

Emotional wellbeing is an important protective factor which research has shown contributes to desistance from sexual offending. The study results demonstrated that Circles significantly improve the emotional wellbeing of Core Members. At the start of their Circle, each Core Member had significantly poorer emotional wellbeing than the average person. Their emotional wellbeing improved significantly, however, throughout the duration of their Circle. The data demonstrate an 18% increase in wellbeing scores, with 67% of the Core Members demonstrating significant improvements in wellbeing by the time their Circle came to an end.

The Wider Benefits 

There was also a pay-off for local citizens and communities. As well as the improved community safety afforded by Circles, the evaluation highlighted the reciprocal nature of volunteering in a Circle. Findings taken from comparisons of pre- and post-training questionnaires revealed that the training delivered to Circles Volunteers was informative and impactful. Furthermore, over time, the confidence levels of Volunteers increased, and they acquired transferable skills which sometimes improved their employability, as this quote demonstrates.

Conclusion 

‘Completing the Circle’ was an ambitious four-year project which set out to end the ‘postcode lottery’ of access to Circles. It achieved this objective and generated fresh evidence of the far-reaching community safety and rehabilitative benefits of Circles. 

Circles UK wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the National Lottery for funding the project and the research team at the Sexual Offences, Crime and Misconduct Research Unit (SOCMRU), Nottingham Trent University. We also wish to pay tribute to the Circles Providers that participated as delivery partners and whose commitment and expertise were instrumental to the project’s success. These were: 

Circles South East https://circlessoutheast.org.uk/
The Safer Living Foundation https://www.saferlivingfoundation.org/
Change, Grow, Live https://www.changegrowlive.org/
Re:shape (organisation has ceased operation)
CROPT (organisation has ceased operation)

Leah Warwick
National Development Manager Circles UK

30th March 2021

Antidote to a Scary World 4

"When was the last time you actually ‘published’ or even tweeted about anything remotely positive ‘Jim’? Happy to contribute but you need to drop the shit cloud image first."

Beamish Open Air Museum in County Durham is a very special place and from Monday 12th April you can once more visit, having first booked a ticket online. During lockdown work has carried on behind the scenes with the Remaking Beamish project, making sure that this extraordinary living museum continues to keep people of the North East in touch with their cultural roots and heritage. The replica Welfare Hall opened before lockdown and gives a flavour of what's to come in the 1950's town extension.

From Wikipedia:-

Beamish Museum is an open-air museum located at Beamish, near the town of Stanley, in County Durham, England. The museum's guiding principle is to preserve an example of everyday life in urban and rural North East England at the climax of industrialisation in the early 20th century.

Much of the restoration and interpretation is specific to the late Victorian and Edwardian eras, together with portions of countryside under the influence of industrial revolution from 1825. On its 350 acres (140 ha) estate it uses a mixture of translocated, original and replica buildings, a large collection of artefacts, working vehicles and equipment, as well as livestock and costumed interpreters.

The museum has received a number of awards since it opened to visitors in 1972 and has been influential on other living museums. It is an educational resource, and also helps to preserve some traditional north-country and rare livestock breeds. 

Best of the Week 2

I started a 15 year career in Probation after securing a Trainee Probation Officer position in 2001. I largely enjoyed my time in Probation. I think the increasing time sat pounding away putting information into a computer to the detriment of working with people, the cut backs meaning a sweated stressed workforce and Grayling's vandalism of the Probation Service was why I have since pursued an alternate career. Good luck to the new recruits I say, they are clearly much needed and represent the future of Probation.

*****
I got a job in Probation almost by accident, it was going to be a tide-over thing, and I knew nothing about it. What I encountered was a vibrant, inspiring institution which rang lots of bells in my then very immature philosophical head about the need to extend dignity and compassion to those who fall through the cracks and make terrible mistakes (and yes, do terrible things). 

I got stuck in and have been there ever since. I was so proud of "my" institution, and so enriched by both colleagues and clients. Several decades later, that has turned to dust. I cannot and will not recommend a career in the tatty remains of this profession to anyone, and personally am just plain embarrassed by what it is now (and its not a profession). 

On a brighter note, this aged old hack is encouraged by conversations with new recruits: they joined with basically the same idealistic principles in mind that I had. They are knackered and disillusioned with the MoJ and NPS, and looking for exits, but there is still a flickering flame on the candle of what I believe are the basic values and ethos. How to fan/protect the flame in the whistling cold gale of the current political climate is the question. 

Pearly Gates

******

I see colleagues becoming ill with the job. You are lucky if you have a good manager but senior management could not care less about the staff or diversity or welfare. They are there to be used as robots spout the policy line to keep their jobs and to blame when the lack of proper staffing, tools, training, time bear down. If you want nil work life balance, stress and very likely anxiety or mental illness, then come work for this organisation. Find another union rather than Napo as Napo management could not care less about individuals just in keeping their job roles. Anyone who has not experienced this lucky you. It is and has been a very real predicament for many.

******
I am reading about “what works” and “end to end offender management”, which probation officers have done for 100 years, which HMPPS have stopped probation officers doing under the banner of OMiC. This is what happens when politicians, civil servants and profiteers meddle with public services, the actual core services become bid candy for charities and private companies seeking financial contracts. If wasn’t muffled by red tape and bureaucracy the probation service and probation officers would be talking and writing about real probation work.

******
Switchback really is a great charity/programme and I had great success with one person who was very committed to seeing it through. That said, another of mine wasn't so great at attending their work placement and kept telling me he didn't like his mentor - after a few three way meetings he was kindly asked to leave the programme. I always wondered if he counted towards their highly dubious 9% re-offending rate - I presume this is 9% for those who complete their programme, rather than the ones they give up on, though I'm not sure. This was many years ago, perhaps they have changed now - but in my mind if you give intensive work and training to very motivated offenders, it's not rocket science that these are the ones who re-offend at extremely low rates.

******
End to end not that old at all and what works not so very old either a bit of USA Ross and plenty of adapted priestly and Maguire. All mid 90s actually. Before the managerialist generation it was Home Office sponsored PO structures and that was an awful period of the 50s do as your told labelled and heavy use of surnames or criminal delinquent. It is important [to] get the facts right. What probation did in the 60s 70s awful. Not so cool 80s and fallen over now regardless.

*****
From the beginning Probation began with receiving and supporting offenders from courts. Helping those released from prison has been part of probation for a long time. What works and end to offender management have been concepts that describe this. The point is, every charity, academic and his dog wants to teach Grandma Probation to suck eggs.

*****
There are some important discussions & challenges to be had in the coming days which have implications for probation work. The new 'Bill' plays a serious part.

"Vaccine passports are just the start – we increasingly have a state that thinks it can do as it pleases"

And, as has been said on here by many before, the behaviour of 'The State' is used as a model & determines what lead the country follows - a concept the self-defined 'elite' seem unable (or unwilling) to grasp when they behave so appallingly with impunity, yet call for the head of anyone else who transgresses the rules/laws/guidance. In doing so they undermine the authority of 'The State' and of its Civil Servants - and of those imbued with responsibility for enforcing the rule/laws/norms decreed by 'The State'.

Towards the recent end of my probation career I found increasing levels of contempt and disregard for authority were commonplace; not just from those with generations of entrenched criminal beliefs handed down (grandfather, father, son) or those who chose to live alternatively out with society, but an unrest and irritation that filled seemingly more 'everyday folk' with overt attitudes that displayed a general lack of respect for others, a self-centredness, a sense of self-importance, a sense of entitlement which fuelled their victimhood at the unfairness of not having.

* yet this government and its cheerleaders are seen to fill their boots and fuck up with grotesque consequences, but fail to accept responsibility or resign;

* their civil servants are seen feathering their nests, speaking in forked-tongues at parliamentary committees yet achieving nothing;

* chums are given unlimited access to the public purse, for no good reason or purpose

So why can't we, the people, behave the same? Why can't we, the people, lie and cover up? Why can't we, the people, behave badly? That makes for a more difficult and confrontational supervision session, doncha think?

*****
I agree with you. We live in a very broken world. I feel that whilst everyone wants the benefits of living in a society with its organisation and social structures and protections, more and more people want to individual entities, think, say, and do whatever they want, regardless of the impact they might have on the collective.

I think there's many reasons for that, but much of it is about money rather then values. There seem to me to be an attitude that as long as we all pay our taxes that's enough to keep society operational. However, there seems little consideration that 'operational' is only half what's needed to make society function well. A collective sense of social value is also required, and an understanding (and acceptance) that to make everything work, a certain degree of 'me, the individual' may have to be conceded. 

I think more and more that concession is becoming a reluctance rather then a willing contribution. It's that reluctance that fuels the feelings of victimisation and marginalisation, and creates the sense of entitlement. For society to function healthily it has to be more then a mass of individuals only concerned with their own individual life journeys. 

But that's not the sermon being preached from the pulpits of government. They preach the virtues of individual freedom and rights because its beneficial to them, it allows them to carry on doing whatever they want. After all they're extending the same privilege to everyone. But their little corner of society is far different to the society the rest of us live in. It's snake oil and deceitful and they know it's harmful and disingenuous, but as long as they can keep getting what they want, why concern themselves with the great unwashed? Unfortunately, that's a very pervasive attitude that appears to be leaking into everything.

'Getafix

*****
I've worked in prison and personally I would rather be given time with the offenders rather than this be outsourced to officers. The officers don't seem to know what we do exactly and prison can't be arsed to brief them on this as part of the training. With the term offender manager it means all issues they are unsure of come to us. Waste of time. We are probation officers not responsible for issues which prison system have areas to deal with. Plus huge time cost in answering a discussing whatever the issue is bypassing the app system sometimes rather than spending this directly with the person we should have contact with.

*****
I rather think that those who design and develop these changes to probation services start from a base point of somehow viewing probation in the same context as one big offending behaviour programme. An all inclusive, multi disciplined programme that everybody who enters the CJS must be subjected to. Hopefully, some might gain some benefit, but the important thing is that they MUST do the course.

I think "knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing", has never been a more appropriate saying in today's CJS. I wonder too, with recent reports that people who go through particular offending behaviour programmes are actually more likely to reoffend then if they hadn't been through the programme, if the same might be true for those subject to probation? Just a thought. 

Everything has become just a process, compartmentalised to create greater opportunities for 'Outcome Mining'. I get the sense that OMIC is just a rehashing of the failed TTG, big idea, great rhetoric, but no foundation. OMIC? The upshot is that people will still be released with £46 in their pocket (ever noticed that the £46 never increases with inflation? Been the same amount for 30 years!), and have nowhere to live. Perhaps even more so now, because NFA might mean being able to circumnavigate tagging! I'm just wondering this Good Friday morning, if those making the "machines" actually know what the "machines" as supposed to do anymore?

'Getafix

******
Next time any of our senior leaders talk about professionalising the service, please could you ask them why they think it's ok to employ people with no probation experience as trainers in the national training team who will deliver mandatory PQiP training.

******

It may be because people are so sick of the cover ups scapegoating and lies that more of the same evokes further feelings of powerlessness. Alison Moss's experience shows they do and don't do just what they like. By they I mean senior management and the organisation as a whole. They have browbeaten down so many staff that survival means not reacting perhaps or internalising feelings. I would have thought a few comments would come though as clearly what they are spouting is not the reality for many many staff members.

Anon

*****
Not passive: traumatised. TR was traumatic. I opposed it to the best of my ability and beyond my capacity and the impact of that on me is lasting and profound. Sounds self-indulgent? If I were a surgeon/GP/nurse and said that the privatisation and ruin of the service to which I was devoted had been decimated and it trashed me, that would be easily understood and would invite empathy. If an NHS worker said that their identity was tightly bound to their profession that would be accepted, applauded (literally).

Since TR the impossible demands on probation staff have piled on and on. Ludicrous caseloads is but one aspect. The “reunification” is, I think, a vaguely positive move, but we are back into “sifting” and yet more upheaval and individual colleagues living on the edge. HMPPS is an appalling organisation to work for, and while the long game might be to fight for a public probation service to unshackle itself from the clutches of this awful department, dominated by political imperatives and the prisons end of business, the short term is so bleak. And exhausting: if I was busting a gut at work to make a difference to public safety and towards my clients living peaceful and fulfilling lives, I would be motivated and uplifted, but that is not the game in town.

Some strong and clear leadership would be a thing to hang some hope on. Employers are failing here: if they were “leading” this profession they would be defending it, not jumping through barely legitimate hoops. What can the Unions do? Nobody is watching or listening. Good MPs -seeing as we are politically driven- would be an asset, but none of the good MPs are in power, not even the Tory ones. 

Pearly Gates

******
Hi, I will be retiring soon. Had I known what was in store for me ten years ago l would have left Probation. I remained but have been staggered by the hollowing out of Probation. I see other workers who look to me scared, demoralised, worn down and with little fight left in them. Some of my younger colleagues think I am lucky to be in a position to retire early. I am guessing that people will retire or quit Probation once the Coronavirus working changes and re-joining of CRCs with NPS has happened. The rosy picture the Senior Managers paint is unsurprising. In order for a profession to be properly dysfunctional it needs to deny and gloss over problems and especially to blame individuals at the bottom of the food chain. Not one Senior Manager has confirmed or even suggested that the Probation profession has died on its feet on their watch.

123me

Become a Probation Officer?

HMPPS is pretty desperate to recruit and train 1,500 new Probation Officers, but you only have until April 16th to apply:- 

 
Applications for PQiP are now open

You can now apply for our trainee probation officer programme. Applications will close at 11.55pm on 16 April but we recommend starting your application as soon as you can, to allow plenty of time to complete it.

Apply now.

We held a webinar on 30 March ‘Becoming a probation officer – live Q&A’, where probation officers spoke about their experiences of the application process, PQiP training and their experiences in the role. You can re-watch this event here.

--oo00oo--

In addition to watching the video (watch on the web/join anonymously) any applicant might also want to take notice of the following that arrived overnight by email:-

Hi Jim,

I spent part of today reading the recruitment and retention policy put out by Ian Barrowman on the HMPPS homepage dated 01.04.21 in which they outline their concerns regarding difficulties recruiting to certain areas, (London and the South East) and their strategy to overcome this and other problems. They act as if they don’t understand why they have such difficulties and outline a schedule of interventions over coming years to investigate and remedy the situation. The five point plan makes no mention of the long running bugbears which constantly feature on this site:-

• Pay gets a one line mention despite over a decade of wage freezes
• More responsibility for less money is perfectly reasonable
• OASys and repetitive mind numbing petty bureaucracy doesn’t get a look in
• Workloads will be addressed some day soon
• Scapegoating via the SFO process is overlooked
• Bullying managers and the JFDI culture is clearly accepted because it is not criticised
• Outcomes of recent employment tribunals are disregarded
• Driving people back into offices despite government advice to work from home doesn’t warrant a mention

There is a drive to recruit 1500 more probation officers despite an acknowledgement that the current crop are hugely dissatisfied and no analysis as to why any one would want to bother.

What we do have is promises of jam tomorrow or maybe the next day or possibly the day after and a two year timeline to consider the situation. Oh, and no mention of discussing anything with NAPO because presumably their consent to anything/everything is taken for granted.

--oo00oo--

Postscript - No; No; No!

Normally I resist the temptation to comment early on with blog posts that contain external content because what I think isn't really the main purpose of this venture; I'd much rather hear what others think. But today's going to be an exception and especially now that I've watched the whole HMPPS webinar. Obviously highly-orchestrated and polished, it nevertheless confirmed what a bloody bureaucratic process it all is! Would it have given me encouragement and confidence to apply, especially if I had a disability or 'lived experience'? No! Was I convinced by what the CPO had to say? No! Was I convinced about a 'modern' probation service? No! Just sayin.

Crumbling Justice System

The new MoJ Permanent Secretary might feel there's much of a problem with her department, but a former Attorney General begs to differ. No doubt we all recall that one of the consequences of the Brexit shenanigans was a purging of decent 'one nation' Tories like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve. I notice the latter fired back at the weekend with a powerful piece in the Guardian:- 

I've seen how the UK justice system is crumbling. Why doesn't the government take action?

From decrepit court buildings to legal aid cuts, the service has been brought to its knees. And there’s little hope of change.

When I first started at the bar in the early 1980s, my practice was largely publicly funded by legal aid and much of it was crime and family work. I travelled across London and south-east England representing clients in crown, county and magistrates courts. Most of these buildings were Victorian and lacked the facilities to cope with the growing volume of criminal and civil cases.

But there were signs of change. At Maidstone, where I was a frequent visitor, the Queen came to open the new court centre. She spoke of how the provision of justice was the essential first “social service” provided by the state, and central to her coronation oath. The resident judge, John Streeter, had worked hard to get a building that could help deliver an effective justice system. There were many more courts; rooms for consultations with clients; and a bar mess, where, apart from being able to buy hot food, there was the privacy to get advice from colleagues and to resolve issues with one’s opponent. A couple of years after it opened, visiting officials of the Lord Chancellor’s Department were holding it up as an exemplar for the future, noting that it had a reputation for efficiency and high professional standards of delivery.

When I was attorney general from 2010 to 2014, I returned there on a visit to the Crown Prosecution Service and to see the judges. The contrast could not have been greater. The building looked tired and poorly maintained. There were water leaks. The facilities for advocates were largely gone, and with them much of the sense of purpose and camaraderie I remembered. The judges were no better off. Most had brought their lunch in plastic containers from home.

While it must be right that cuts in services have to start with things that will be seen as personal comforts, the state of that court and others I have seen since – and the general state of morale among judges, court staff, barristers and solicitors carrying out these areas of work – point to a major crisis in our justice system.

This can also be seen in the Prison Service, with its overcrowding and its inability to deliver effective rehabilitation regimes or control the spread of Covid. At its root are a series of decisions made by successive governments – going back over at least two decades – to either hold back on the increases enjoyed by other areas of public expenditure or, after the 2008 financial crisis, to cut the justice budget more deeply than anywhere else.

In real terms, the reduction in spending overall between 2010 and 2019 has been about 25%. Given that, in that time, the population of England and Wales has risen 7%, and the prison population has largely remained at over 80,000, any cuts to the criminal justice system were going to be hard to achieve. In the run-up to the 2010 election, the then justice secretary, Jack Straw, who I shadowed, could see the looming crisis and facilitated better pre-election briefings for me from civil servants than had been done before. They were sobering.

Yet at the time, much of the Conservative policy on prison reform, and trying to decrease prison numbers, was being diverted by the need to fight off a tabloid-inspired campaign to make us buy prison ships to cater for increasing prison numbers as a result of tougher sentencing. This policy was plainly incapable of delivering value for money. (I note that the new police, crime, sentencing and courts bill is about to pile more pressure on prison numbers.)

After 2010 the largest percentage of cuts fell on legal aid and the budget of the CPS, the latter of which came under my remit as attorney general. The CPS, under Keir Starmer’s leadership, responded very well in streamlining its operations and still maintaining conviction rates – helped by an unexpected downturn in the number of crown court trials.

But all efficiencies have their limits. When in 2013 we successfully persuaded the Treasury to impose a far smaller cut than what had been demanded, it was obvious that if this continued there would be problems, as became evident later with complaints about falling conviction rates and collapsing cases.

Yet the worst consequences come from the treatment of the legal aid paid to advocates and solicitors for their work. This was reduced from a total of almost £2.2bn in 2010 to £1.7bn by 2019. Despite trying to minimise the worst effects of these cuts, and a recent small budget increase, the blunt reality is that for most criminal and family related work, the earnings are now so low that any lawyer would think twice about choosing these fields as a career option.

I can think of no other professions where the remuneration rates have been almost static for 30 years. I was pleased as attorney general to champion pro bono (unpaid) work and schemes to deliver civil legal aid through law centres, but none of this can compensate for the cutbacks.

For the ordinary public who encounter the justice system, its growing inadequacies and delays – and the injustice that can flow from them – are real. Last month, the Secret Barrister spoke of a case of serious domestic violence first reported by his client, the alleged victim, in 2017. In large part because of cuts to the police, the CPS and the courts, and exacerbated by the pandemic, the case has still not been heard in court. In all this time the defendant – an allegedly violent, manipulative man – has remained free, and the complainant has been unable to move on with her life.

It is sometimes suggested that the cost of our common law justice system had become excessive by the standards of civil law western democracies. But this is not supported by the evidence: in 2016 the Netherlands was spending €689 (£585) per head on justice, and Denmark €338, compared with €150 here.

Most of the justice secretaries I have known have privately acknowledged that their department is systemically short of resources. But because of the way the Treasury and government operates, and the difficulty of showing financial effectiveness in an entirely demand-driven service with unpredictable fluctuations, those secretaries have resorted at best to damage limitation, and at worst to currying favour by volunteering cuts. There are seen to be few votes to gain for a successful justice system.

So I fear we are unlikely to see any significant change – though it is urgently needed to maintain the foundations of a civilised society. Far from being able to pride ourselves on the excellence of our system of justice, it is in danger of turning into a whited sepulchre: but as the external appearances are being maintained, few in government are noticing or appear bothered.

Meanwhile we should stop being surprised at the increasing stories about the failings of the system, because the reasons are obvious.

Dominic Grieve QC served as shadow home secretary from 2008 to 2009 and attorney general for England and Wales from 2010 to 2014

Charity Work

In September last year, Alice Dawnay, CEO of Switchback, addressed a New Philanthropic Capital virtual conference on 'What Probation Service reforms mean for charities', alongside HMI Justin Russell who had much of interest to say. I notice Lord Ramsbotham was in attendance and earnestly hope he will carry on with his work in keeping the probation ethos alive.

“What drives us at Switchback is making this system work. This is about behaviour change and building a system of challenge and opportunity that is going to work for the people in it. The starting point has to be the human beings at the heart. The system needs to be built around them; it has never worked to fit people around a payment structure.”

Not living in London, I wasn't aware of the Switchback charity and its work with young men leaving prison. Formed only some 12 years ago by Alice Dawnay, a beneficiary of a Churchill Travelling Fellowship, it won the 2019 prestigious Longford Prize and boasts some impressive solid gold backers:-  

The Goldsmiths’ Company Charity is proud to be supporting the Switchback Initiative.

Switchback is an award-winning charity helping young Londoners to find a way out of the justice system and make real-lasting change in their lives. By providing intensive one-to-one support either side of the prison gate alongside real-work training after release, they support 18-30 year-old men (Trainees) to build a stable life they can be proud of.

The Switchback model is centred on a meaningful relationship between Switchback Mentor and Trainee, beginning in prison and lasting as long as it takes. Switchback Mentors work with the same person in prison and in the community, offering them the continuity, support and opportunities they need to make positive change happen for themselves in the immediate and long term.

Switchback challenge and encourage Trainees to take control and build stability across all areas of life, spanning 10 Switchback Pathways from housing to health. By combining consistent 1-to-1 support with training in a real work environment, Switchback enable Trainees to make a fundamental shift in their mindset and lifestyle. And it works; Switchback Trainees are six times less likely to reoffend than other offenders (9% v’s 49%).

Building on 11 years of impact, Switchback work with others and share what they’ve learned to inspire change across the justice system and beyond.

Things Could Be Better

You're a Probation Officer, but utterly disillusioned with the inability to do the job as you would wish, shackled as a civil servant, drowning under stifling bureaucracy, together with a command and control ethos as part of HMPPS? Dream of finding somewhere you can be allowed to do the job but don't fancy the Falkland Islands or St Helena? Fancy a starting salary of £42,000? Then why not try Guernsey? You have until 19th April to get an application in:-

OVERVIEW OF POST: 

Probation Officers are the operational staff of the Probation Service having the one to one contact with offenders to assess, monitor and provide therapeutic interventions to reduce and manage offending behaviour. The main purpose of the post of Probation Officer is to:- 

• Provide the Courts with quality information and assessment to assist in sentencing decisions; 

• Supervise offenders in the community in order to reduce crime and so protect the public;

• Prepare prisoners for release and resettlement into the community; 

• Work with offenders and deliver interventions to address factors that increase their likelihood of re-offending, including attitudes, thinking and behaviour; 

• Manage high risk potentially dangerous offenders including violent and sexual offenders;

Given the nature of the work, the post requires flexible working which may include full or part time secondment to the Offender Management Unit at the Prison.

GOVERNANCE RESPONSIBILITIES / RELATIONSHIPS: 

Whilst Probation Officers have responsibility to manage their own workload, they will have regular supervision with a Senior Probation Officer. The post requires the successful establishment and maintenance of a number of key professional relationships, including within the Committee for Home Affairs, the Judiciary, Law Officers, Advocates, Prison, Police, Court staff and Child Services, as well as within the Probation team. Close links are also maintained with local voluntary and partner agencies that have a role to play in the management of offenders, victims and witnesses. 

MAIN AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY: 

• To assess individuals' offending behaviour, develop proposals for sentences and prepare reports to advise the Courts on criminogenic profiles of offenders, interventions required to reduce likelihood of re-offending, and the management of risk. 

• To represent the Service in criminal Courts and give advice to the Courts as requested.

• To supervise, manage and enforce supervision orders imposed by the Courts to reduce offending behaviour and protect the public. 

• To enable offenders (in the prison and the community) to develop strategies for changing their offending behaviour by co-ordinating and delivering cognitive behavioural and other interventions to reduce offending behaviour, including in areas such as Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse, Sexual and Violent offending and substance misuse. 

• To take the lead in the management of potentially dangerous sexual and violent offenders through the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) system in partnership with Senior Officers of Police, Prison, and other statutory and non-statutory bodies. 

• To implement and monitor rehabilitation and resettlement plans for prisoners; to enforce compliance with post custodial supervision requirements and manage risk for the protection of the community. This will include the provision of reports, assessments and recommendations to the Parole Review Committee regarding suitability for early release. 

• To provide specialist information and peer supervision on areas of specialism such as mentally disordered offenders, young offenders, sexual or violent offenders and intimate partner violent and abuse perpetrators. 

• To demonstrate defensible decision making in management of offenders, and evidence such through maintenance of comprehensive assessments and records. 

• To contact victims of serious crime in line with Victim Contact legislation and guidance. 

• To develop and sustain effective working relationships with staff, within and out with the Probation Service, with the primary aim of reducing re-offending and protecting the public. 

KEY CRITERIA: ESSENTIAL 

1. Relevant Professional Qualification (i.e. Degree level Dip. SW, Probation Qualification, or CQSW) with a willingness to undergo and pass Criminal Justice/Probation modular study if deemed necessary. 

2. Proven interpersonal and communication skills with the ability to form and promote mutually respectful working relationships with Courts, clients, staff and other agencies. 

3. Report writing skills with experience in providing analysis of offending behaviour, risk assessment, and making recommendations for interventions. 

4. Ability to formulate, implement, review, and enforce sentence and supervision planning in prison and in the community. 

5. Evidence of the ability to motivate and encourage offenders, and to deliver offending behaviour work to reduce risk of further offending. 

6. Proven knowledge and expertise in assessment and management of risk and ability to take the lead in the management of potentially dangerous, sexual, and violent offenders. 

7. Ability to demonstrate defensible decision making in the management of offenders and evidence same through comprehensive record keeping. 

8. Ability to work to a high standard with minimal guidance, as well as part of a team to ensure organisational targets are met. 

9. Evidence of good IT skills including experience of using Microsoft Office products and client databases. 

DESIRABLE 

10. A working knowledge of legislation under which the Service has statutory responsibilities.

Antidote to a Scary World 3

"When was the last time you actually ‘published’ or even tweeted about anything remotely positive ‘Jim’? Happy to contribute but you need to drop the shit cloud image first."

For many people of a certain age, mostly men it has to be said, the age of steam holds a particular fascination. With the end of Covid restrictions in sight and the weather improving, thoughts are naturally beginning to turn once more to the delights that can be found by retreating into the past. 

With impeccable timing, an extremely enterprising group of videographers based on the Great Central Railway have created the third in a series of monochrome videos in the spirit of those wonderful British Transport Films of yesteryear produced by Edgar Anstey. For those unaware, it could have been crafted 60 years ago, not a week last Wednesday.   

I'll just mention in passing that the GCR is no ordinary heritage steam railway being the only UK example of a preserved former Main Line, double-tracked and capable of line speeds of 60mph.    

Quorn and Woodhouse Station 

"Station People" is a film made during the third nation lockdown in early 2021 utilising pre-existing film owing to the inability go out and obtain new footage. "Station People" features mainly unused clips from our previous film "This is Quorn" but these have been interspersed with some previously seen and turned into an entirely new narrative. 

In the week that Quorn & Woodhouse marks the anniversary of its closure, this film takes a humorous slant on the characters that might have been found at a country railway station in its pre-preservation heyday, at a time when many of us are unable to be together to enjoy our hobby. 

We are grateful for those additional photographic contributors who allowed us to use their footage for the making of this film. Ask a young boy what he wants to be when he grows up and he'll probably reply an engine driver, for the romance of the steam locomotive for many is unsurpassed, however, there are many more places on the railway where this enchantment can be found, as, with an entirely new narrative, "Station People" aims to tell.

We are all looking forward at getting back to the station, particularly to start work on the next film, watch this space.

Whole Systems Approach?

I find offender management in custody to be such an odd concept if the purpose improving outcomes for release. Although billed as a "whole systems approach to resettlement", there is nothing "whole systems" about the way this endeavour was named i.e. management in custody. For me, they lost the probation "buy in" right from the start by choosing both the phrases "offender management" and "in custody".

There always was an "offender manager" or "offender supervisor" in custody so I'm just not sure what is supposed to be new about what goes on in custody - OMIC has removed, not added - taken AWAY the role of the community officer, or at least someone "out" of the prison to co-ordinate the sentence.

My experience of prisons over the years is they only see what is going on within their four walls - rightfully so. But it often took the oversight of someone external i..e myself, the community practitioner to look to other prisons and point out what the person needed existing in another prison elsewhere. While of course a consistent keyworker prison officer (rather than the old "personal officer" system, which changed depending on what wing the person was on) is a good thing...but I don't feel the service have ever told us what the benefits of taking away the community involvement/oversight is supposed to be? Maybe it is, maybe we're really not needed until the last few weeks before release - maybe this elusive research mentioned via Twister informs us that this relationship makes no difference to the person's community outcomes.

Of course, we all know that prisoners move prisons due to security concerns, overcrowding, or indeed to access interventions they need, or to be closer to family. The original offender management model was brought in precisely because prisoners were constantly moving from prison, to prison and each prison "started afresh" as if the past hadn't occurred.

OK so there's a handover? What experience have people already had of these supposed pre-release handovers and the inter-prison-transfer handovers that take place along the way?. Do these adequately enable the community PO to grasp a person's history and develop the relationship just at the moment you're about to tell them "oh, here's your licence conditions, and by the way, you're going to AP". Will the prison OM's be prepping the person for the release, these conditions and what to expect from day one, to adequately prepare them?

And what exactly is whole system about moving people to another resettlement prison shortly before their release, so that the "handover POM" doesn't actually know the person and therefore has nothing to handover? What is whole system about outsourcing "resettlement work" to private companies to do absolutely nothing about resettlement prior to release? And what is whole system about taking away the role of the prison OM in those crucial weeks prior to release?

Oh and has there been any communication that as part of the new national standards the community OM is expected see the person three times in that final resettlement phase? Has time been allocated for these increased prison visits, have videolink slots suddenly been massively increased for this evident increased demand or are people still finding it notoriously difficult to see people in custody?

I cant believe that I've heard about OMIC for years now, and still I feel I know very little about what it is, why it's happening and how this is going to affect myself let alone the people directly affected?

*****
Hang on I just don't get it - if OMIC is going live in open prisons, at what point does the community OM get allocated? Surely one of the main purposes of open prison is for the person to come out on ROTL - as was as the notoriously laborious ROTL approval process, who does that if the person isn't within the last few months of the sentence - who visits the family, builds those relationships, and sees the person while on ROTL, if there is no community OM to see? And if there is a community OM doing all these things then that's not OMIC is it, it's the status flipping quo!

******

This from the archives:-

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Latest From Napo 193

For quite some time readers have been suggesting that Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) was another disaster in the making and this latest news from Napo would tend to confirm that view:-

Napo and POA in dispute over OMiC as Johnson announces 10,000 more prison places

Today’s big story on sentencing reform, and the return of the Tories favourite old pre-election mantra of ‘lock em up and throw away the key,’ is symptomatic of the failure by successive Governments to properly understand the need for a balanced approach to prisons and rehabilitation.

I have just returned to HQ from the interview with Sky News earlier today where I tried to introduce a different perspective, and highlight a number of Napo’s campaigning priorities. Depressingly today’s debate has been dominated by the headline of 10,000 new prison places (and at least one new prison) to be financed by another huge windfall from that Magic Money Tree.

Same old, same old

There are a few reasons why the policy shift should be subject to major scrutiny. Firstly, because it represents a brutal ‘pitchforking’ of the reformist shoots previously planted by Messrs Gauke and Stewart on the need to abolish short term prison sentences which would have made a decent start in freeing up space across the HMP estate. Although by now we should know better than to expect a few facts to get in the way of the populist soundbites resurrected by Boris and his chums as they move inexorably towards a November general election.

Secondly, and in fairness to Secretary of State Robert Buckland, who at least acknowledged the need to take a holistic view of penal and rehabilitative policy on the early bulletins, it's yet again been all about Prison being the place where society’s ‘problems’ can be sent and sorted. Anyone with even half an idea about the justice system can tell you that this is a patently absurd mind-set, both from a financial and political standpoint. It's been tried tested and failed more times than many of us can remember and has seen the Prison population rise to bursting point across several decades.

OMiC dispute

Today, and perhaps very well-timed, your National Chair Katie Lomas and I have served notice on Sonia Crozier that Napo are now in dispute over the Offender Management in Custody strategy for a number of reasons as articulated in our letter. Our serious doubts about the practicalities of OMiC were raised a long time ago and have been again in light of the Governments U-turn on Probation, but it’s been an awfully long slog trying to get someone to take our concerns seriously. Today’s announcements should at least ring some more bells in this regard.

Fortunately it's not just us who are somewhat miffed at developments, and last week we met with our colleagues from the POA who also have serious issues in common cause around grading, qualification and workloads. We agreed to exchange notes going forward, maintain contact and seek joint meetings with senior HMPPS leaders and Ministers.

We will also be raising this subject as a matter of urgency at this weeks’ meeting of the NPS JNC and we will report further to members as soon as we can.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary

--oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier, Chief Probation Officer and Executive Director Women
HM Prison and Probation Service

12th August 2019

Dear Sonia,

Dispute re OMiC

During recent engagement with your Officials about OMiC, we have received information that causes such significant concern to our members that we have no option but to formally register a dispute. Our concerns are summarised here.

Lack of Consultation

At the last meeting on July 24th we were presented with (after around a year of asking) a Powerpoint presentation titled “OMiC Staffing Model”. The document was dated March 2019. This document includes changes to agreed workload timings and changes to work practices such as completion dates for OASys and the OASys review frequency that we have not been properly consulted about. These constitute a significant change for members as well as establishing a lower level of assessment and review than is currently in place for clients in custody.

Broken assurances on staffing levels

At the start of OMiC, we were assured that the Offender Management part of the project would not be rolled out until staffing levels are safe. It is now clear that this is not the case and many members are reporting that their division is pressing ahead despite the significant vacancy levels and unacceptably high workloads that exist.

We have been informed that, in five prisons, there are serious staffing issues that are not likely to be resolved by the “go live” date. Our understanding was that in such a situation the “go live” would not proceed, but instead we have been informed that the Case Management Support model will be used instead. This will force Probation staff to take on dangerously high caseloads of high risk clients and will see prison staff who have not had the requisite training or acquired the qualification to carry out offender management tasks with those clients. Taking aside the reality that the Case Management Support model rarely affords the workload relief it promises in the custody part of the sentence, there is little work that can be usefully given to someone else in this way. Our members who are being forced to work in this way are at real risk from such excessive workloads and we know from tragic experience that working so far beyond capacity also prevents members from delivering the standard of work required from them.

SPO workloads

We have raised our concerns for some time about the prison SPO role after it was announced that the ratio of SPO: reportee would be 1:14 FTE rather than the 1:10 FTE in the community. The SPOs working in prisons will be supervising both probation and prison staff who are on different sets of terms and conditions. We already see SPOs in the community struggling with workloads, especially where there are a number of part time staff (far more likely in a predominantly female workforce) which often means there are far more than 10 staff to supervise. In Prisons, these difficulties will be exacerbated, as the SPO is expected to drive the rehabilitation culture in the OMU while referencing multiple management and support structures for the two sets of staff. Our representations on this issue up to now have been ignored.

Change to agreement on the contracted out estate

During the meeting on the 24th July, we were also informed that, contrary to the previous assurance that high-risk clients in the contracted-out estate would have an OM with a Probation Qualification, there was a plan to use the Case Management Support model here too. This again forces members to work with dangerously high caseloads and way beyond their safe capacity thus risking their health and safety as well as making it impossible for them to deliver the standard of work expected.

Concerns about the model

You are of course aware that right from the start, Napo have questioned the OMiC model because it builds in working practices that are not supportive of desistance including inconsistency of worker through the sentence. The change of Offender Manager during the preparation for a client’s release is particularly concerning; as the period immediately prior to and just after release are especially vulnerable points in the sentence. The blueprint for the change to Probation Services discusses how problematic these “handoffs” are, and this forms part of the basis for one of the most significant U-turns in policy we have seen in Probation. It is therefore astounding that the OMiC model is being forced through with the same flaws embedded.

The announcements by the Prime Minister over the weekend of the intention to create 10,000 new Prison places, in itself means that urgent dialogue (and surely a further review) is now necessary on the whole OMiC strategy and the resourcing requirements that are going to be needed in Prisons and Probation.

In addition, the OMiC model has been altered for the Women’s Estate to remove the Keyworker role for those women described in the documentation as “high complexity women”. We have made representations about the degrading language being used and suggested that “women with complex needs” would be more appropriate. We question the decision to remove the Keyworker role which has been described as providing more consistency. Using consistency of worker as a reasoning for any decision in this model is bizarre, given the representations we have made about the model overall, but in this case it doesn’t fit at all. The Keyworker role is one of the positive aspects of OMiC, providing an additional supportive member of the “team” in the prison. This should be used to enhance, not supplant the interaction with the Offender Manager. Instead of removing the Keyworker role we believe that the Keyworker should remain, but the Offender Manager should be allocated additional time to ensure that positive working relationships can be built.

No consultation on job losses

In addition to the practice concerns we have illustrated above, it is very clear that the OMiC model is simply seeking to resolve the acute and chronic staffing issues in the NPS by giving staff unacceptably high workloads and by giving 30% of the custody caseload to Prison staff to manage. Although no NPS staff will lose their employment (because of the high vacancy rate in the NPS and our ‘no redundancy’ agreement) this nevertheless represents a net loss of jobs which has also not been the subject of prior consultation with the unions.

In view of the urgency of this issue, we are seeking its inclusion as an additional item at this weeks’ meeting of the NPS JNC. Meanwhile, Napo will be taking steps to consult with our sister trade unions and our members about how we should progress this dispute.

Yours sincerely

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary
KATIE LOMAS National Chair

---oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier reply letter 05.09.19

1st October 2019 

Dear Sonia, 

DISPUTE - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT IN CUSTODY (OMIC) 

Thank you for your reply of 5th September to our letter giving notice of dispute dated 12th August, which was the subject of a meeting at our Offices on 27th August. 

Whilst we welcomed the constructive discussion that took place between us, we nevertheless feel that certain aspects of your written response require some comment. 

Staffing Levels 

Having reflected carefully on the narrative that you have provided, Napo does not agree that the expected ratio for Prison based Probation Officers of ‘no more than 80 cases’ represents a safe workload. Here you reference the additional Case Management support that will be provided by Prison staff, but the genesis of this dispute is that Napo does not believe that prison staff (while no doubt being in possession of skillsets applicable to their core functions ) have the requisite experience in offender management and that the anticipated caseloads for Probation Officers within the custodial environment remain unsafe. We have consistently challenged the idea that the case management support model provides significant workload relief for the PO or PSO holding a case and this means that we have little confidence that such an arrangement would make managing such a high caseload safe. 

Additionally, Napo has some difficulty accepting that the three bespoke Community Hubs will be an effective work around in covering vacancies. Here we foresee large volumes of cases being managed remotely by practitioners where the likelihood of engaging directly with clients in the way that you have suggested is highly unlikely to occur. 

Unfortunately your letter is silent on the key issue of staffing in the community and we continue to pick up concerns from members that despite high vacancy rates in some areas staff are still being expected to move into the custody roles with no immediate plan to backfill them. Indeed you have admitted yourself that it is unlikely that Probation staffing levels will stabilise for at least another year leaving divisions struggling to manage such a significant organisational change. 

All of this leads us to say that we do not believe that all of this is in keeping with assurances we have been given on safe staffing levels. On that basis we seek a further and urgent review of the calculations which have given rise to the caseload forecast. 

SPO Workloads 

We generally welcome the narrative that you have provided in respect of our concerns and we look forward to engaging with your OMiC Team to explore how best we can construct the SPO Survey that you have agreed to launch. 

‘For Profit’ Prisons 

Napo has long held the view that OM supervision in these establishments is well below the standards that we would expect. Napo does not believe that the CMS model will offer suitable workload relief for Probation Officers to oversee High Risk cases for the reasons outlined above. This plan also goes against the original assurance given in response to our representations about “For Profit” prisons. 

Continuity of Offender Manager 

The Offender Management in Custody model builds in an inconsistency in client – worker relationship that we seek to avoid in other circumstances. In fact part of the rationale for the integration of offender management out of CRCs and into the NPS is to create fewer changes of worker in the system. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the OMiC model is cheaper than properly resourcing end to end offender management. While most will welcome the increases to prison staff resources and the renewed focus on rehabilitation in custody the reality is that the proposed model requires fewer reviews of the sentence plan during the custodial phase of the sentence (moving from annual to biennial or triennial dependent on the length of sentence) and only mandates monthly contact between offender manager and client for high risk cases and only quarterly contact with the client in low risk cases. While this may appear to be more than the current model for offender manager contact it is less contact than most clients experience from the combined team of offender manager based in the community and the offender supervisor based in custody. Closer examination of the model reveals that decisions have been made in terms of resourcing that assume shorter times to complete various tasks including OASys assessments which will lead to higher caseloads for staff undertaking the Offender Manager role. While the mandatory contact and review of sentence plan demand may be lower than before this will place intense pressure on staff working in custody. 

Women in Custody 

We welcome the commitment to change the descriptive language as described in the OMIC model and will work closely with your team on the issues that we have raised. 

Reassurance about no redundancies 

Whilst we acknowledge the pledge for there to be no redundancies under the OMIC transition, we feel that you have failed to acknowledge the fact that NPS vacancies are being filled by prison staff whom we feel are under qualified for the role that they are going to be asked to undertake. 

Again, and linked to our concerns above, Napo believe that we need a joint review to identify the exact staffing need under the proposed OMIC Operational model in order to give staff confidence that it is fit for purpose. 

We look forward to another opportunity to try and resolve these issues and hope that we can arrive at position which provides confidence to our members that their concerns are being taken seriously by the employer. 

Yours sincerely 

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary

KATIE LOMAS National Chair

--oo00oo--

There is reference to the matter dated 26/06/2020:-

OMiC update

Our regular meetings with members of the OMiC Board have resumed now that we are working towards recovery and some of the staff who were seconded out of the OMiC project will be returning to it. A final draft of the OMiC recovery EDM will be shared shortly for our final opportunity to consult on it but this week’s meeting was a useful opportunity to raise some of the issues that have really been highlighted by the Covid-19 crisis.

SPO line management arrangements

While the move to formal line management of prison SPOs by the Governor has not yet happened informal management arrangements most certainly are in place and there have been examples of tensions between the NPS approach to exceptional delivery and the prison service approach placing prison SPOs in an almost impossible situation. We have supported manager members to address these issues and in some cases escalated them to ensure that SPOs have the right level of support from their division in implementing the EDM and the NPS guidance on social distancing, hygiene and PPE that underpins the protection of health and safety during the crisis. We have insisted that these issues be taken into consideration as we resume discussions about the line management of the prison SPOs. For now issues should be raised locally via the divisional implementation board and if necessary referred to Katie Lomas.

The approach to recovery

Once the EDM is published each prison will develop a regime recovery management plan (RRMP) and local reps, both Napo and POA must be involved in consultation on this along with the associated Health and Safety risk assessments for the OMU and related activities. As reported earlier in the week Napo and the POA have agreed to work collaboratively on this and where there is no Napo H&S rep in the prison local branch reps will be able to liaise with the POA H&S rep and members working in the establishment.

--oo00oo--

And the last reference appears to be here:-

Napo bulletin 7 August 2020

Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) and Prison Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs)

The OMiC implementation consultation has re-started following a pause due to the deployment of some project staff to frontline roles. The main focus of initial discussions has been the return to workplaces and the changes to EDMs for the prison OMUs. Napo health and safety reps in the local branch should be consulted on the OMU EDM and risk assessment as well as the EDM and risk assessment for any related functions that will involve Probation staff. Any members working in prisons should make sure EDMs and risk assessments have involved consultation with them and local health and safety reps and ask for a review if they haven’t.

The overarching advice remains the same for NPS staff working in prisons as for other workplaces, if you are able to work at home you should do so. There were examples as we moved into lockdown of some resistance to this in some prisons, if any members are experiencing difficulties in following this advice they should liaise with local reps to raise this first with the Head of Stakeholder Engagement and refer to Katie Lomas for escalation if this is not successful.

At the same time as discussing the return to workplaces we have also continued to raise issues about the OMiC model, workloads, lack of admin support and issues with the prison SPO role. We will be getting a full report back on the issues raised at our next meeting with the OMiC team.

A Bit of Twitter

We all know Twitter is somewhat limited in it's ability to be informative and useful, but it is of course a favoured route by which organisations like to push some PR messages. Sometimes, just sometimes, the kernel of a debate can start. This from yesterday, 31st March 2021, began with a typical bit of HMPPS PR puff:-

We are pleased to announce that the OMIC model goes live today in male open prisons. The start of a journey to enhance relationships by taking a whole systems approach to effective and safe resettlement. A significant achievement by HMPPS colleagues during challenging times. omic@hmpps

OMiC is not evidence based and in fact goes against evidence that puts the relationship of client and probation as a priority. This new model will mean even less consistency in probation officer, poorer relationships and have a negative impact on clients pre release. Tania Bassett Napo

Surprised to read your comments and very happy to arrange a catch-up to brief NAPO on the OMiC research. omic@ hmpps

Thank you. I think we already have it but if you can email it to me that would be great. Napo has never hidden it's views on OMiC. There are well known in HMPPS. Tania Bassett Napo

We are having monthly meetings with the OMIC team and have been feeding back since at least 2017 to my knowledge about our concerns in terms of the model. We welcome keyworking but not the inbuilt inconsistency in terms of relationship with probation officer. Katie Lomas Napo

OMiC is awful. Trying to build a relationship in a short period of time undermines the whole sentence process. It certainly does not put the sentenced individual at the centre of the process to seek long-term positive change. Still a PO

What OMiC did do however was take away those cases that gave OMs a bit of breathing space and replace them with a caseload of people who need 100% attention all of the time. This was not reflected in the WMT but increased and stress for OMs and the risk of burnout. Mrs P

Perhaps although we are not hearing that on the front line. However, policy should be evidenced based not reactionary to a staffing issue caused by a previous failed policy. Tania Bassett Napo

Let me assure you, it is talked about on the front line. SJ

It certainly was when I was on the front line as a PO up until December 2020!! Mrs P

It is being raised with the OMIC team and with the team dealing with workloads issues! Katie Lomas Napo

We don’t want Omic. Forced on probation staff by those who don’t know a piss about our work Dave

I’m not sure who you are referring to Dave. Our Chief Probation Officer & I do understand Probation work Dave. And I truly believe that OMiC has already made a positive difference to those in prison with much more benefits to come. Angela Cossins Regional Probation Director NPS South West, HMPPS. National lead for NPS work in prisons, the Parole Board & for Resettlement

I am so proud of all that has been achieved. A huge thanks to the team and colleagues in prisons and probation who have worked with dedication to enable us to reach this important milestone! Zoe HMPPS Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) Project.

You, team @omichmpps & all the practitioners & managers in prison & Probation should be proud Zoe. I am confident that this will make a real & positive difference to those in prison & on license in the community. Angela Cossins