More on OASys

In a sense I feel I should apologise for mentioning OASys yet again, however in view of it's all-embracing hold on probation practice and the fact that the public and members of the House of Commons Justice Affairs Committee appear to know little about it, I feel I can't let it rest just yet.

I'm grateful to all those who have taken the trouble to comment on one particular aspect of OASys discussed recently, namely the so-called 'pull-through' Standard Delivery Report which is generated from OASys. The responses tend to confirm that feelings are mixed and can be defined along generational lines. This was certainly the view of Jonathan Ledger the NAPO General Secretary when he gave evidence to the Justice Affairs Committee and probably indicates a degree of heated debate within the Union on the topic.

For me personally, leaving aside for a moment issues as to the effectiveness and utility of the system, what has really amazed me is the lack of knowledge, or willingness to discuss OASys timings. Just how much time does it take up and how long does it take to fill in? As this exchange with Robin Wilkinson, the Director of Human Resources at NOMS shows, the Committee would like to know as well:-    



Q202 Mr Buckland: The problem is-and this might well be what my colleague Anna Soubry is going to ask-that OASys tends to categorise risk as an objective thing, whereas we all know that it is very subjective and depends on the context of each different offender. There are a myriad of different contexts within which that risk needs to be managed. It comes down to discretion really, doesn’t it, rather than processes?

Robin Wilkinson: I think the OASys process is a good process that provides really good, solid, information to enable and support probation officers in making the judgments they have to make, so I think we shouldn’t look to throw away the strength of that in any way, shape or form. I think it is a good part of the process to be worked at-to be validated. But it cannot be viewed in isolation. All of the factors that you mention, I think, are very, very important. It is about using the information that OASys gives you as a starting point, to be able then to provide the input that a professional probation officer does.

Q203 Mr Buckland: But how much time does it take to put together the OASys matrix-the graphs that those of us that have seen PSRs know about? How long does it take? Is the bulk of the work on the case being spent doing OASys rather than directly engaging with the offender and their family?

Robin Wilkinson: I couldn't give you a view on that. I can certainly aim to provide that information if you would like me to do so.

Mr Buckland: Yes, please.

What I find astonishing is that such a significant change in probation practice as the introduction of OASys should go ahead seemingly without full knowledge as to the consequeces in terms of man-hours required to operate it. Here is the Director of Human Resources at NOMS no less admitting that even eight or more years since it's full introduction, he either cannot or will not give an answer to such a basic question about OASys.

I cannot think of another responsible organisation that would commit itself to such a radical change to working practices without first having quantified the likely effects in terms of resources required in order to implement it. Equally, wouldn't you think that with so much water having passed under the bridge NOMS might be able to establish some causal link between its introduction and high workloads, stress and sickness absence, low morale and staff retention?