Is this the future?
We are a regional sized housing charity and I have watched and wondered what the split of to CRC and NPS will mean to us? We house a substantial number of ex-offenders and we have had a first taste of the new service from our local CRC.
One of our housed offenders is a MAPPA 1 case supervised by the CRC. He is on licence to early 2017. He lives in block of flats not far from the city centre. Over the weekend his flat was attacked and his door daubed with abuse. A number of our tenants contacted us concerned about what had been written on the flat door and walls and about their safety. Our maintenance team immediately cleaned the area and repainted the door.
We were informed that he had been arrested by the Police and to the best of our knowledge was being questioned about a serious offence.
What were our concerns? If he is released without charge do we need to move him to a safer location? If we do, when is he likely to be released so we can smoothly ensure that he is safe? We are also conscious about the safety of the other residents in the flats if he was released and went back to the flats. Would other residents be mistaken for him? Would he been vulnerable to attack from other residents? What were the CRC thoughts and views on this as they have him on licence?
On Monday morning we rang his CRC officer to explain our concerns, no one available to take the call. By 5pm no response from anyone and I rang the CRC to speak to the Senior Probation Officer, not available. I got their email address and emailed them highlighting our concerns and have waited for a response, nothing from the Probation Officer or the Senior Probation Officer.
We eventually heard today from the Police that he has now been remanded in custody accused of a serious sexual offence. We have secured his room and informed the other residents of the flats that he will not be returning.
I have still not even had an acknowledgement from the Senior Probation Officer concerning my email nothing but a terrible silence. Brand new future sounds like a nightmare. What if he had been released without charge and returned to his property?
Every child care or probation disaster enquiry always highlights poor communication as the key failure. Not a great start for the CRCs in terms of communications! I don’t blame the PO or SPO as we are already hearing nightmare stories about caseloads and new areas of responsibilities.
However the CRC have to understand a bad call or mistake is not someone losing benefits and it is not something that can be covered up in prison, this is out there in the community.
If anyone thinks I have unrealistic expectations I did spent thirteen years as a Senior Probation Officer.
I'm not sure why CRC are holding a MAPPA 1 case. Perhaps this needs wider media attention?
ReplyDelete07:25 - as I'm typing, you're already publishing!
Deleteguest Blogger - are you sure your information is correct. MAPPA L1 means he must be either a registered sex offender (Category 1) or have been on licence for a violent offence (sentence 12m or more - Category 2). Category 3 MAPPA cases (catch all for other serious offenders) can't be assigned to Level 1. So why was this person with the CRC...are you sure that is correct. Sounds like it might be an SFO, so am sure if there is a mis-allocation this will be picked up by the investigator.
DeleteMappa L1 are sex offenders who the police have a statutory duty to manage but are not necessarily any further risk to victims. Think of someone elderly and infirm on conviction, for example. I don't see any reason why CRCs couldn't or shouldn't manage such cases but it may be less cumbersome for NPS to take them all as VISOR records are kept by the fuzz and only NPS have access to that.
DeleteThis would not have been a crc case. They should have responded but this has to be an nps case.
DeleteShould not be a CRC case. We have had a number allocated to CRC but been identified by staff as inappropriate allocation and reallocated back to NPS. ALL MAPPA CASES are NPS not CRC.
DeleteUnder TR, MAPPA 1 cases should be managed by NPS. Whilst this doesn't address the poor response you received, why is this case being managed by a CRC?
ReplyDeleteI have trouble catching my SPO and I work in the same office so as an outsider you were always on a hiding to nothing.
ReplyDeleteMAPPA (Cat 1 or Lv 1) should be with the NPS. If convicted of a sexual offence he now will be.
ReplyDeleteProbation were unavailable, but did you ask to speak with a colleague or duty worker? What about a MAPPA chair, another manager, or just call head office.
As much as CRC's are useless, the housing agency could have done more. They did the alternative a went direct to the police, good choice.
He'll now have his licence recalled so don't expect a release for now. However contact probation and check when the current sentence expires. If it's quite a while then given he is remanded too id suggest to re-let the room - it's likely he would not want to return to the location. You could contact:visit him in prison and ask direct too.
"As much as CRC's are useless"?
DeleteAs already posted, no CRC case should be holding a MAPPA 1 case and the response from you really should have been to contact MAPPA coordinator and request a L2 meeting be held. Every agency has responsible for MAPPA.
ReplyDeleteI think you raise some valid points because I am inside probation and struggle to contact people especially managers. Yet there is evidence in my area that the number of managers has actually increased post split ( especially NPS but that's another story). Communication is everything in our profession yet it was the first casualty of the TR split.
I suspect in this case that Probation knew from police that he was arrested for a serious offence, but weren't taking the call from the housing provider. Very poor.
ReplyDeleteNo blame here on the housing agency. They were dealing with a dynamic situation and called the police when probation were unresponsive.
In our area the housing providers would have determined him as not suitable for housing because, with a criminal conviction, he immedietely represents a risk of anti-social behaviour. Problem solved before it arises.
ReplyDeleteNext?
Seriously, folks, that is what we have to contend with. Local authority homeless, housing providers from ALL sectors and police all hold on to this approach. Its a friggin nightmare getting anyone housed, crc OR nps. Shelter have closed their offices here and baled out, which doesn't help matters.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/22/cutting-prison-victim-awareness-tories-chris-grayling
ReplyDeleteWhat this blog shows to me is that partner agencies are confused about the new structures and don't know which AGENCY to call, never mind which officer. The simple truth is that PROBATION' the brand has been compromised and no-one knows or trusts the new structures. Historically, this provider would have been supported through their enquiry by a single agency with a professional and emotional commitment to service delivery and public protection. Now we have confusion, buck passing and poor quality information. A bad idea badly executed.
ReplyDeleteNo matter whether or not the housing provider did the right thing or contacted the right bit of probation the complete lack of a response from the CRC at any level speaks volumes about how bad probation has become. Granted the new owners took over on Feb 1, but in my area (Hampshire - PF) it is business as normal at present i.e. absolutely no different to what it was pre Feb 1. Yet the situation in this area would be little different to that outlined above. Probation have been failing society and clients for a long time now and the fact the CRC's have been sold off is no reason or excuse for the way things have been going for quite some time now. Granted Grayling and his cohorts have caused endless problems and sapped moral BUT that is no excuse for the way individual officers have stopped doing their jobs properly for some considerable time now. The officers in the case outlined above - whether or not this client was misassigned to the CRC is irrelevant - should be deeply ashamned of themselves. No matter what the circumstances a courtesy call should have gone to the housing provider within a couple of hours of them first contacting the CRC about the matter even if they couldn't give out any information at that point. I have to wonder why simple courtesy and manners seem to have gone by the wayside.
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:20
DeleteCan you expand on why you think some individual officers have not been doing their job properly for some considerable time...
I'm not annon @10:20
DeleteI don't think it's a case of staff not doing their job properly, I'm certain that they do.
I think the issue, and perhaps what annon @10:20 may like to consider, is that the job that staff in probation are being asked to do, has moved massively away from what probation services should (and used to be about).
NOMS did for probation services what video did for the radio star. Killed it.
The social work ethos thats been removed (from the job not necessarily the individual), and the tick box formats introduced to probation services, means that probation in reality no longer exists- and it hasn't for a long time now in anything other the name.
Would the job change very much if all probation officers left and were replaced by community offender supervisors?
I really (and sadly) think the answer is no.
For me, its not a case that staff aren't doing their job properly, it's more of a case that the job they now do is not really "probation" at all.
No offence intended to anyone, it really is what I truely believe.
'Getafix'
There's still no excuse for the lack of common courtesy and manners demonstrated by the CRC officers in the guest post. Even if a job has changed away from the social work ethos, professionalism still dictates you behave in a courteous way towards anyone you have contact with or who contacts you. Manners cost nothing and go a long way to avoiding the type of feelings expressed in the guest post
DeleteEven though the job has changed its identity and though recent TR upheavals may have affected morale for some, it is stated by Anon @10.20 that that is no excuse for some individuals not doing the job properly. The necessity of 'Doing the job properly' was the principal finding in the Hanson and White SFO into the murder of John Monckton. In that case it was a 'collective failure' by the London Probation Area: it was a systems, not an individual failure.
DeleteAnd if the poster has identified some individuals who have stopped doing their jobs properly, what is she/he going to do about it. Because if you do nothing, the corollary is that you help to create a collective failure.
I'm a CRC officer and if I had received this information, I would have actioned it. No matter which side of the divide created by MOJ we still have a responsibility. As repeated numerous times here, any MAPPA eligible cases should be NPS. I previously stated we have had a number in my area incorrected allocated - but once this has been raised by Officer allocated case a reallocation has taken place. I oppose TR and everything about it, but if as individuals we do not take responsibility to action RISK then we just add to an already dangerous environment.
DeleteThe real problem is that profit rules.
ReplyDeleteWhatever situation arises, if there's no pennies to be made from it, then leave it alone and fingers crossed, it'll just go away.
As for the MAPPA issue, I think you'll find that quite a few MAPPA 1 cases will have been allocated to CRC on the basis of being medium risk regardless of whether they are subject to MAPPA or not.
"I think you'll find that quite a few MAPPA 1 cases will have been allocated to CRC on the basis of being medium risk regardless of whether they are subject to MAPPA or not."
DeleteThen that is a very basic error indeed.
Please see my comment above re VISOR. No reason why CRC can't take a Mappa1 case in principle but they aren't allowed to see VISOR. Monstrous lack of info sharing SFO just waiting to happen.
DeleteMAPPA C1 L1 ie RSO status could only be held by NPS
DeleteThere are plenty of violent offenders who are MAPPA Level 1 by virtue of serving a 12 month sentence, don't forget them.
DeleteThe division is very clear - all MAPPA nominals, whatever level, go to NPS. It astounds me that we're nearly 12 months on from the split and this practice still isn't consistent.
I'm not saying it makes sense - I have plenty of 'medium risk' cases on my CRC caseload who are one hell of a lot more dodgy than at lot of the MAPPA 1 cases I used to hold - but the dividing line is very clear.
A letter has been received from MOJ and Michael Spurr confirming enhanced voluntary redundancy applies for the lifetime of the CRC contracts.
ReplyDelete"A letter has been received..." - by whom?
DeleteI truly hope this isn't mischief-making.
By UNISON and Napo. I have a copy.
ReplyDeletePlease post this letter anon 13:10 or anon 14:50
ReplyDeleteI have sent it to Jim. My technology means I can't copy pdfs to this blog on my phone. Sorry. It is quoted in an email NAPO/UNISON just sent to all members.
ReplyDeleteYou know when some colleagues have posted about how crap the agreement negotiated by the unions was and some of us advised you to wait and see .....well now it is coming into it's own.....caveat emptor etc
ReplyDeleteYou only tell children to 'wait and see' when they ask for a bike for Christmas. People's livelihoods are taken a bit more seriously and they had/have every right to question a union whose machinations have been on a 'wait and see' rather than an upfront and honest dialogue from the onset of TR.
DeleteDoes this just mean that the TR contractors will have to wait until September and move on compulsory redundancies. If so, why would they bother offering voluntary redundancies away?
ReplyDeleteThere is no way the author of this blog was a former probation practitioner
ReplyDeleteExactly. Poor knowledge of probation, MAPPA and recalls for someone claiming to have 13 years exp as a SPO. Furthermore, I wouldn't expect an ex SPO with such exp to have to seek answers on a blog. I answered the post in one of the initial replies but did wonder if there was bending of the truth here. Maybe the poster is really one of Grayling's men trying to infiltrate the blog and put the cat amongst the pigeons.
DeleteI note there's a few practitioners here with a poor knowledge of MAPPA and procedure too, so the poster is not alone!
Well I work on reception and this would have been put through to NPS duty no question. It's standard practice to ask an outside agency which part of the business they need to speak to and if they do not know then a quick conversation would have signalled this as being NPS. We have it all the time, in that for some reason they have been given a name, ask for that person who now happens to be in a different side of the the business and they end up going around in circles. The phone systems are also a complete nightmare, for every one call we need to hang onto another 4 go onto the answer machine so it may be that this was just put through unannounced as a specific officer was asked for and it went onto someone's voicemail who wasn't in the office that day which probably includes the SPO on this particular day. I cannot see anyone ignoring this at all.
Delete