Tuesday 22 February 2022

Having A PoP

My thanks and sympathy go out to the colleague for taking the time and effort to pen the following and send it in at 1 this morning. It justly deserves a post in its own right:-

A day in the life … I’ve read all the comments and I can’t say I’m surprised. I’ve been in probation a while and it’s the same everywhere. I have a few colleagues that work in fairly decent offices elsewhere but for most it’s an ordeal. It doesn’t matter if were NPS or CRC because it’s bad everywhere. In my office the teams are divided because of the workload and pressure. Managers want to play friends when it’s convenient for them, SPO’s are not trustworthy and Senior managers are avoided.

I’ve long become a robot to the work, everything is on autopilot for this monotonous job I once was proud of. It’s not hard to listen to the complaints of others and it’s the same, soul destroying work because of high caseloads, low pay, limited career options and a bullish management blame culture. If lucky, a probation office will have one decent manager, usually silenced by the other bullies into being totally useless.

Like most, 9am is my arrival at work. I don’t need to be in at 9am but managers like to watch what time we arrive. To prove we’re working they want us to keep a timesheet, write a start time in the register on arrival, update movements on team calendars, log into MS Teams and attend daily meetings. A colleague who sits near is bullied to get in before 9am every day, apparently it’s required by an imaginary policy for to be ready at their desk before business hours start. There’s another colleague a manager visibly exits their office daily to check if they’re at their desk by 9:30am. Only a matter of time before a clock in machine appears by the front door. I’d prefer it as they wouldn’t be able to wriggle out of overtime pay any longer.

Daily around 10am - 11am there’s usually a meeting, briefing or training of some sort. They’re arranged by managers and staff haven’t been consulted on timings. There’s so many meetings I’ve given up trying to keep track. Everything’s titled mandatory and non-attendance is met by barrages of emails from SPO’s, Senior Managers, Business Managers, Diary Managers. Attendance isn’t much better as after introductions, instructions and group reprimands you wonder what the point was, and I’ve recently stopped hearing instructions from those on the same pay band or below. The band 5s object to scrutiny or complaints, and always want the last word so I shut off before it even starts. I’m usually preoccupied dipping in and out for the cases I have reporting from 9:30am onwards. The rest of the time responding to emails, recording case records and completing pieces of work.

11am - 4pm was a steady stream of cases reporting and all the work that goes along with it. At some point I remember to eat lunch and if lucky get to take a walk. Today a colleague and I spent our 15 minute lunch break speculating what idiot decided to call them People on Probation and us Probation Practitioners, because I am sick and tired of hearing the words “PoP’s” and “PP’s”. It was that or discuss our caseloads which are year in year out in the red, diaries full and every day in the office busy. We all work from home when we can but managers are constantly threatening to reduce and remove this. They’re nowhere to be seen themselves, and when in the office they’re tucked away in their offices bombarding us with email instructions, requests and threats to PPs about PiPs and PoPs. We even get follow ups from their managers repeating the same hogwash as if we couldn’t read first time around.

Today I felt dismayed because every time I went into a case record I saw reams of manager instructions that have never been discussed. Sometimes the exact opposite of what was discussed was recorded, or what I’d already said I cannot do. We’re all being set up like this, pressured to do home visits, attend external meetings, training, epf, eqip, drug testing, lifer panels, quality assurance, audits, team events, monitor performance targets, there’s just not enough time in the day. I do not care about performance targets or why a piece of work was completed in 16 days instead of 15.

I put all this aside and about 5pm I managed to fit in a quick home visit on my way home on a case who struggles to go out. I’m not bothering about the others on their stupid list sent out to name and shame us. I saw about 15 cases today, not including the random cases turning up at reception because managers are incompetent at allocating cases or covering staff absence. Tomorrow I’ll have another 15 and again bombarded by managers and reception to see unplanned cases. If these so called managers just kept to ordering office supplies, signing off leave and being there when we need them it’s be a much better place.

I’ve got MAPPA later in the week which is pointless at best, and two Oral Hearings for cases that won’t be released. That’s three days gone out of four remaining days of the week, and I’ve somehow got to fit in a parole report, a recall review report and two full Oasys risk assessments. I will compete them, but they’ll be factual and short so some numpty manager with less probation experience than my lanyard will want to have a chat about “quality”. The response from me is always the same, ‘too much work, too little time and stop penalising us for YOUR failures in staffing and recruitment because nobody will ever be able to do quality work unless caseloads are capped at 25 cases’.

Through the day every colleague I spoke to is sick of probation, bullied by managers and actively seeking a way out. From SPO to Director, these people are responsible for causing misery in the lives of staff, many which have now lost interest in their careers as a result. The pay is bad, the conditions are worse, and everyone seems to be returning from or about to go on long term sick due to stress, mental breakdowns and other work induced health problems. Two temps left last week after less than a month, both said they would not be returning to probation.

It’s now gone 12am and I could switch on the laptop to finish up for today and start preparing for tomorrow’s 9am eta. This is how many colleagues get by, working late into the evening or getting up at the crack of dawn to switch on. I don’t because I refuse to compromise my commitments outside of work, I’d rather raise my pirates flag and face the wrath of the bully beef managers. I’m no rebel, I understand that even a machine has to rest, and if I’m going to worry about anything it’ll be bills, debts and all the other problems life brings.

61 comments:

  1. An excellent contribution - just about nails it.

    But sadly no-one with any power or authority gives a crap.

    Transition to Trusts was bad; TR1 was awful; the current situation, TR2 aka Reunification, is the worst possible scenario.

    But what do we get?

    "Napo, the largest Trade Union in the Probation Service for England and Wales, today welcomed the reunification of the service into full public ownership and control on 26th June."

    Ha!

    The reality is it was one of the most successful covert operations by the command-&-control freaks in HMPPS.

    And this blog post identifies clearly how it works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if we all stood up and shouted from the rooftops they’ll still ignore us.

      Year in year out we complete the staff survey, and yet things have consistently gotten worse.

      The only way is OUT.

      Delete
    2. Napo has been dysfunctional for an long time. They never wanted proper action in due legal review process which came about from this blog lobbying. In fact Napo lost a series of complaints taken against their behaviour while trying to destroy the most able. Money in tens of thousands fi&ting it's own side . No investigation why. They lied they lost Napo are corrupted and this is a big reason why we have been royally shafted. The general secretary actually thinks he can get a reward, a seat in the lords so sell out the union is the job.

      Delete
  2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0014p73

    "Early in her career, Julia wanted to know if it was possible to get someone to believe they committed a crime (when they hadn’t)? In a bold experiment she showed how students created false memories of criminal events in their teenage years, describing in rich detail how they had assaulted people, when no such events had taken place. What does this mean for a criminal justice system that relies heavily on memory-based evidence? Does it make it more difficult for the victims of crimes to have their voices heard? Victims of sex crimes, in particular. Or can the findings of false memory research be used to prevent miscarriages of justice?

    Julia talks to Jim Al-Khalili about growing up with her dad’s delusional beliefs and paranoid thoughts and how a profound appreciation that everyone’s reality is different pulled her to the field of false memory research."

    Might explain a few delusional beliefs that flourish amongst the higher ranks of HMPPS?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don’t think they’re delusional.

      Drunk on false power, maybe.

      Definitely liars.

      Delete
  3. HMiP avoids the real issues

    Napo has been MiA since 2013

    Senior managers speak in forked tongues. Not worth listening to

    ReplyDelete
  4. From Twitter:-

    "We now can't use any of the 1-2-1 interventions we've been using for years. Instead, the only pieces of 1-2-1 work we are allowed to deliver are a set of "approved toolkits". They have really dumbed-down this job. Anybody could do it now - painting by numbers."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And where is the victim focus on some of these toolkits.

      Delete
  5. From Twitter:-

    "I recently retrained in Social Work (having been a PO for years) and I reflected during that retraining that actually Probation Officers are undercover Social Workers and sometimes (most of the time) you have to selectively listen and just do what's right, not what is mandated."

    ReplyDelete
  6. From Twitter:-

    "Always wanted to qualify under CQSW. When considering relocation to ROI they wouldn’t accept England & Wales qualification due to absence of social policy element to it. When describing a PO I always revert to Scottish definition - criminal justice social worker - it just works!"

    ReplyDelete
  7. It seems clear to me that the UK probation service is now being modeled on the American way of post custody parolee supervision.
    It's becoming authoritarian rather then supportive.
    That comes with consequences. Not just for those subject to probation, but also for those employed by the service.
    There's a great difference in renumeration in America between a probation officer and a parole officer.
    I find the term "probation" misleading as its applied in today's world.
    Parole officers or probation officers?

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
  8. Enjoyed the sparring on twatter last night - my reading (biased, of course) was that [I assume] a senior manager (self described as a 'head of PDU' so sounds 'senior' [although subsequently reluctant to identify what that meant]) failed to justify their attack on a PSR author who, as I read it, wanted to fairly represent cases in his/her reports - even if that meant risking challenging others' assumptions... or getting it wrong.

    Seemed a fair point to make; trials or convictions are not always what they seem, viz-current post office scandal + one or two other famous miscarriages of justice.

    Report suthors are *not* arbiters of truth & justice BUT sometimes its important to raise real concerns.

    I once wrote a very contentious report for a (locally) high profile crown court matter - judge asked me to speak to her in chambers before the hearing. I shit my pants. She commended me for my diligence in pursuing certain aspects of the case with the defendant - matters which had otherwise been ignored by CPS & the defendant's legal representatives - and she warned me that as a result the outcome would be very different to what was anticipated.

    The defence barrister was subsequently lauded for achieving an extraordinary result.

    I never heard a squeak from anyone, & certainly not from our very stupid anti-court senior management team.

    The case was reallocated out of area.

    And that, dear reader, is probation work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probation reports were (presumably still are) requested/ordered after Guilt was admitted or proven. Sometimes defendants provided more information post-conviction which they felt unable to provide previously. Range of reasons could include don't trust police, not wanting to be a 'grass', advice from legal rep, wanting to mitigate length of sentence...

      Not often, but sometimes, the info provided during PSR interview raised questions about the defendant's culpability, e.g. taking a hit for A.N.Other out of loyalty, being bullied by co-defs or police, social/cultural/peer issues around admitting to certain behaviours.

      And sometimes it raised previously unidentified concerns about the risks to others, about intent, about future plans to commit similar or more serious offences.

      In recent years I've noticed that when discussing an offence report authors have been directed to ignore everything except the CPS papers or, less common, a judge's finding of guilt. The def's own account is regarded as a litany of disposable excuses

      A probation-prepared report is *not* a re-run of a trial or a crusade to unravel a conviction *but* it can sometimes uncover key elements which have not been known about or considered at the point of conviction & which have a bearing upon how someone is sentenced.

      It is not an exact science. It most certainly should not be a DataInDataOut exercise and the idea of, let alone the use of, algorithms to write reports, assess risk or suggest sentencing is simply bonkers.

      But report writing was always an art, not a science. It was a person-centred exercise, not a profit-orientated process. It was time consuming & resource heavy, e.g. interview with defendant, write report, discuss with defendant & finally gatekeeping by court staff - which could involve further discussions & changes. God Forbid it might necessitate an adjournment!!

      Thus it had to go & be replaced. It was unsustainable. It was impossibly flawed, neither precise nor concise and had no place in modern probation service provision.

      Or so they want you to believe.

      Delete
    2. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pre-sentence-report-pilot-in-15-magistrates-courts

      A pre-sentence report (PSR) is an expert assessment of the nature and causes of an offender’s behaviour, the risk they pose and to whom, as well as an independent recommendation of the sentencing option(s) available to the court.

      A PSR assists the court when they may be considering a community or custodial sentence for the offender. A PSR must be as objective as possible and for this reason typically consists of:

      - a summary of the facts of the case
      - an expert risk and needs assessment about the individual circumstances of the offender and the offence(s) committed
      - an analysis of the sentencing options, with an independent sentence proposal
      - additional information not presented to the court such as information about the offender and their view of the offence(s) which is obtained by interviewing the offender or through the liaison with other agencies

      PSR’s provide the court with a greater understanding of the background and the context of the offending behaviour, rather than just the details of the offence. However, the Judiciary will form an independent view for the most appropriate sentence based on all the evidence they have heard.

      Delete
    3. (contd)

      As highlighted in the Sentencing White Paper, published in September 2020, there was a significant decrease in the number of PSR’s being requested by the Judiciary between 2010-2018. The PSR pilot was launched in response to this government recognising the vital role that PSR’s play in the criminal justice system.

      The Ministry of Justice, HMCTS and the Probation Service has developed an Alternative Delivery Model designed to improve the quality of information presented to court at each of the pilot sites. The pilot will evaluate whether this alternative approach will improve offender outcomes, Judicial confidence and the administration of justice.

      The pilot launched on 22 March 2021 and was rolled out across 15 magistrates’ courts in 4 phases over 8 weeks. It is now live in all 15 magistrates’ courts.

      In the Sentencing White Paper, the Lord Chancellor committed to ensuring that probation staff are supported to produce a high standard of reports and to increase the amount of court disposals which benefit from a PSR.

      This aligns with the ambition set out in the Probation Target Operating Model: to provide expert pre-sentence insights to the Judiciary, contribute to efficient court processes and arrangements for enabling successful sentence commencement.

      Delete
    4. (contd)

      The Alternative Delivery Model comprises three components;

      - Encouraging and monitoring a before plea PSR process (set out in the nationally available PSR before plea protocol) - seeking to identify defendants earlier in the criminal justice system
      - Maximising the capability of the National Probation Service to deliver higher quality reports on the day through targeted training and development
      - Delivery of short format written reports for three priority cohorts that are understood to have more complex needs. These are:
      * Female offenders
      * Young adult offenders (between 18-24 years of age)
      * Offenders who are deemed to be at risk of custody

      Delete
    5. (contd)

      Sentencing White Paper 2020:

      Empowering Probation

      Probation services play a crucial role in protecting the public while working with offenders
      to turn their lives around. We recognise there has been significant external scrutiny of the current system, all of which has identified significant challenges and the need for reform. To support a more robust criminal justice system, we are implementing a new sustainable model for probation services in England and Wales, to be in place by June 2021, and supported by additional investment. Under the future system, we will:

      • Unify sentence management under the New Probation Service;
      • Create 12 new probation regions;
      • Deliver effective and innovate rehabilitation services through the public, private and
      voluntary sectors;
      • Modernise our estate and technology; and
      • Ensure our staff can thrive and develop

      Delete
    6. (contd)

      ***** Delivered PSRs have fallen from 156,659 in 2009 to 75,900 in 2019 - a drop of 52% *****

      "We believe that the provision and quality of PSRs are key to supporting effective decision making in the criminal justice system, so the court knows when there are unresolved needs that are directly associated with offending and is aware of all individualised relevant risk factors. This then enables the appropriate risk management arrangements to be put in place to supervise the offender in the community and support their rehabilitation. There has been a significant decrease in the number of PSRs recorded in magistrates’ court. Delivered PSRs have fallen from 156,659 in 2009 to 75,900 in 2019. This is a drop of 52% percent. However, this government is committed to increasing the delivery of targeted, quality and timely PSRs to assist sentencing determinations. Similar findings have been acknowledged by HM’s Inspectorate of Probation."

      2009 - 2019 = a particular period of chaos in probation service provision during which we endured the rise of hubris aka Trust status, installation of a Tory govt, Grayling, TR1, TR2, the demise of Napo, etc.

      Delete
    7. Wanted to have a look at those stats as I'm not convinced we ever get the *true* truth from HMPPS.

      An estimated 1.79 million defendants were proceeded against in criminal cases in the magistrates’ courts in 2009, of which 420,000 were defendants in adult indictable/triable-either-way cases & 97,700 were cases committed/sent for trial to the Crown Court... (tot=517,700)


      There seems to be a gaping hole for 2019 court statistics...??? I found some for 2020 though:


      In 2020, magistrates’ courts in England and Wales received 1.13 million cases... 258,000 were triable-either-way... A further 38,700 cases were committed to the Crown Court for sentence & 29,000 were initial hearings for indictable offences (tot=328,700)

      Trying hard to do a like-for-like with variable stats is obviously a pointless exercise, but I did find this extra stat hidden away, which is helpful:

      * 98,154 PSRs were produced in 2019/2020

      So if we consider that a more like-for-like option:

      2009: 1,790,000 criminal cases in total; 156,659 reports ordered = reports for 8.75% of *all* cases (regardless of outcome)

      2020: 1,130,000 criminal cases in total; reports for 8.68% of *all* cases (regardless of outcome)


      So the drop in numbers of reports appears to be proportionate to the numbers of cases in total - or, not a drop at all?

      Concerns about loss of sentencer confidence might be a HMPPS myth...? Although assessing the *quality* of those 98,000 reports is another matter.

      We also have to factor in the increased use of alternative disposals, e.g. cautions, fines, warnings which negate the need for a report.

      See also:

      https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/research/the-evidence-base-probation/specific-types-of-delivery/court-reports/

      Delete
  9. By email:-

    "Hi Jim,

    Apologies for the delay in responding, I have been away for a few days in order to gird my loins for the final weeks of my career in the probation service. Thanks for the kind words and best wishes for the future. It will be a wrench but I have reached the stage where I can’t stand it any more for all the reasons outlined by other contributors to the blog.

    I am extremely pleased to have made a contribution, no matter how small as I always fear the blog will fade away. I know how much it has sustained me over the years, and I like to think I will remain an avid reader, but any small input on my part pales into insignificance when compared with your own efforts, undoubtedly at some cost, be it financial, emotional or personal.

    At the moment, I intend to simply walk away, but who knows what the future holds. Thank you once again, not just for researching and publishing the blog, but taking time to communicate with contributors and fellow travellers.

    Can I reciprocate at this point and wish both you and the blog, (and of course any ‘survivors,’ who remain in the trenches) all best wishes for the future and many successes in the battles ahead. Fond regards to all."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/17/what-else-can-i-do?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16458796169381&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fsociety%2F2010%2Ffeb%2F17%2Fwhat-else-can-i-do

      Delete
    2. What else can a senior probation officer do?

      Brian, 55, earns £39,424 as a senior probation officer but is thinking of retiring. Could he earn additional income in paid public appointments?

      Tue 16 Feb 2010

      1. Brian has developed good mediating skills in his role as a trade union committee member, so he might become a lay member of a rent assessment panel, which seeks to settle disputes about rents, service charges, leasehold issues, and other property-related conflicts. The appointment runs for five years and he must be available for around 40 days a year. The fee is £190 a day.

      2. His interest in the criminal justice system means that Brian could put his experience to good use by becoming an independent member of a police authority standards committee, which looks at breaches of conduct by authority members. He would be expected to be impartial and objective, able to reach decisions based on fact, and observe confidentiality. The appointment runs for five years and he would be paid an annual fee of £2,161 for a minimum 15 days' work a year.

      3. With his trade union experience of helping to resolve staff grievances, Brian might become a lay member of an employment tribunal, dealing with disputes between employers and employees. He would be paid £175 a day and be expected to sit at least 15 days a year, plus attending training and observing days. The appointment lasts for five years.

      4. Brian might consider becoming an independent committee member of his local community health services unit – the service provider arm's-length body of his local primary care trust. He would be expected to work at least two and half days a month. His experience of working with disadvantaged groups and his management responsibility would be an advantage. He would be paid £6,096.

      5. Another option for Brian would be to become a charitable trustee, gaining valuable board member experience. The role would require a regular commitment from him, and while the work would be unpaid, the experience he would gain could lead to paid board member opportunities in the future across the public and voluntary sectors. He could register with the national Get on Board campaign, which would then forward his details to charities looking for trustees, and which reflect his interests.

      Delete
    3. Brian can join an agency and work for the Probation Service on a casual basis.

      Brian can use his past experience to write pre-sentence reports or to manage a small caseload.

      Brian can then experience how all his probation staff felt when he was a manager.

      Delete
  10. Perhaps the extraordinary courage of Ukrainian population in face of overwhelming odds from cloth-eared bully Putin will inspire probation staff to get off their arses, challenge bullying management culture & make a positive difference for themselves & for those they work with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlikely, they prefer moaning and doing nothing

      Delete
    2. Possibly right 724 but staff are also fearful and have been for years. There is a lack of leadership in the union. There has been no effective challenges or leadership tom resist anything. The union have become facilitators of our oppressive work environment. Ian Lawrence is false in all he presents yet there he is. The staff are all internal appointments and have no real experience of what trades unionism is about. The hide under a professional association to avoid confrontation. Without effective hard trade unions the staff are and will remain fearful.

      Delete
  11. Probation staff are too passive and need to work together to fight the bullying management culture. Too many probation workers want to break bread and rub shoulders with the managers oppressing them. Instead overcome your Stockholm Syndrome, stop grinning with your senior managers hoping for scraps off their tables, and start challenging your SPO’s and their divide and rule strategies. Challenge every bad decision, at every supervision, meeting and event. Support each other, back each other up, put everything in writing and learn to say NO.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mischief what planet are you on. Fight all wrongs on a principled position use the law. Only take genuine cases don't make it personal. Mischief is for the stupid. The jobs are hard enough without vanglorious ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see from the Probation Institute website, that the Probation Inspectorate are recruiting their own 'Pops'.
    I see this as a positive move, but I expect some won't welcome it so much.

    https://www.probation-institute.org/news/giving-a-user-voice-to-people-on-probation

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 23 February 2022 - Giving a ‘User Voice’ to people on probation

      One of my key priorities when I became Chief Inspector in 2019 was to increase the voice of people on probation, and children supervised by youth offending services, within our inspection methodology. So, I’m delighted to announce that from this month we have entered into a three-year contract with the organisation User Voice, to work with them on our local probation inspections; to gather more evidence from people on probation in every area we visit and work with our full time Participation Lead, Karen Kendall.

      User Voice are an organisation led by, and employing, people who have been in prison or on probation themselves in the past. In every local area we inspect, their staff will interview people currently on probation, on our behalf, to capture their views on the quality of supervision and support they are getting and what’s working well – but also what might need improving, to help inform our local inspection reports. We’ll be asking questions like ‘are you getting treated fairly?’; ‘do you have the right amount of contact with your probation officer?’; and ‘have you been able to access the services needed to make positive changes in your life?’

      This builds on the very successful approach we’ve also adopted over the past couple of years on our national thematic inspections, which all now involve interviews, with a sample of people on probation, by independent external organisations that employ people with lived experience of prison and probation. As well as User Voice, this has included, EP:IC (Empowering People: Inspiring Change), KeyRing Living Support Networks, and Penal Reform Solutions. Over the past two years they’ve interviewed more than 500 people about their experiences on probation for seven of our thematic inspections. We have heard stories of people forced to live on the streets after release from prison and constantly recalled to custody as a result. In addition, there is the emotional trauma caused by police or prison custody to those with mental health or neurodiversity needs, and those dependent on drugs, who have been missing out on the services they so badly need. Separate reports on this feedback are now published alongside each of our main thematic inspection reports, all of which can be found on our website, which also now includes a page specifically for people on probation.

      Elsewhere in the Inspectorate, we’ve had a busy start to the year with the publication of our thematic inspection of the use of electronic monitoring by the Probation Service and of the first of our new-style inspections of local Probation Delivery Units, which started in south Wales. We found major impacts from the pandemic, with significant backlogs of unpaid work and accredited programmes yet to commence and some disappointing scores for the quality of case management, particularly of medium risk and community order cases. Our local probation inspection programme now moves on to England, with Kent, Surrey and Sussex and East of England regions under the spotlight next.

      Delete
    2. Total bs really. Always the bridesmaid but never the bride.

      Will they be employed as HMIP inspectors or Probation Officers? No they will not.

      Even if they tried, they’d need to scrape through vetting first.

      Yes, be mentors and collate feedback, but never be allowed to do so the better paid jobs.

      Delete
    3. The old glass ceiling is well safe as it always has been in everything probation. Unions too.

      Delete
  14. Maybe the retired PO's should just stay well clear and enjoy their retirement or perhaps meet down the pub like normal folk and just have non Probation real life fun, too radical perhaps??

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well it’s not “in line”with my pay !!!

    “ MPs will get a £2,212 pay rise on 1 April, seeing an MP's basic salary go up to £84,144 a year.
    The 2.7% rise will come in the same week that millions of workers see their wages hit by a National Insurance increase.

    Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer have both said MPs should not get a rise this year.

    But their pay is set by an independent body, which says it should be in line with other public sector workers.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-60576639

    ReplyDelete
  16. narrative for bbc file on four link

    "File on 4 tells the story of a charismatic preacher on the run from British police for child sex offences. Three years ago, File on 4 tracked him down to an impoverished Roma community in Bulgaria where he was sexually abusing boys as young as 10. Daniel Erickson-Hull was arrested and charged by the Bulgarian authorities after he was confronted by File on 4 but has since been released and continues to offend. Yet despite overwhelming evidence, the self-styled preacher from London has been left alone. Paul Kenyon asks why the Metropolitan Police has failed to use its powers to bring him to justice and stop boys being sexually abused."

    More failings of The Met...

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do we know when the Napo general secretary role is up for election again it's time we really change the direction. Anyone can stand and anyone else will do a better job. Let's call time on this faux .

    ReplyDelete
  18. Bloody hell the nepotism in probation is shocking. SPO’s and ACOS’s one large family looking after each other.
    You are only included into the club if you fit into the club.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It always has been. This is why everybody is leaving.

      Heads of Service, SPO’s and Business Manager's. Working together in each office to keep the lid on their incompetence, bullying and lies.

      Welcome to probation and the civil service.

      Delete
  19. Law Society Gazette:-

    The Ministry of Justice wrote off £18m in developing a new courts case management system – a consequence of reform projects that go on for years, senior civil servants have told MPs.

    Kevin Sadler, acting chief executive of HM Courts & Tribunals Service, told the Commons justice select committee on Tuesday that national rollout of Common Platform, which was paused last summer, will resume shortly. Sadler told the committee that the system will enable defence practitioners to access CPS information quickly, and limit the scope for misunderstandings and errors throughout the system.

    Labour’s Maria Eagle MP asked how a £18.35m ‘constructive loss’ revealed in the department’s 2020/2021 annual report could fit into the rollout and increase efficiency.

    MoJ permanent secretary Antonia Romeo replied: ‘One of the consequences of programmes that go on for a long time – a lot of work had been done to develop something that would have the CPS fully integrated into the Common Platform. They did a review, looked at their detailed requirements, and it led to a write-off of £18m for work that had been done to get them integrated but they then did not need because they had another system.’

    Sadler added: ‘You’re writing a long list of requirements for the external suppliers to produce an IT system. By the time it’s delivered three or four years later, the requirements have changed but the supplier says “I’ve delivered what you asked for”.’

    Sadler said it was ‘better for everyone and better for the criminal justice system’ to take the constructive loss and design a system that met today’s needs rather than ones three or four years ago.

    Earlier this year the ministry revealed that it had spent £236m on Common Platform, which has been beset by problems and prompted a union representing court staff to consider strike action.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds familiar !!

      Plans for the £234m National Offender Management Information System system, known as C-NOMIS, began in 2004 with the aim of allowing the prison and probation services in England and Wales to follow offenders "end-to-end" through the criminal justice system.

      'Grossly underestimated'

      But by July 2007 the project was two years behind schedule and its estimated costs had increased to £690m. It was later abandoned.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8339084.stm

      Delete
    2. What infuriates me about this is after spending £234 million on a system which was never implemented, we are left with the absolute pile of crap which is Delius. So many more millions of pounds are wasted year after year in staff time to resource using this ridiculous system...constant updating risk registers, personal circumstances, clicking on incessant boxes and drop downs, and they haven't even got the money or sense to include a "window" larger than a matchbox into which we are supposed to write case records (of course using some ridiculous dictated format like CRISSA).

      And yet if I need money to do something which would actually make a difference to someone's life, say give them a bus ticket, pay for ID, seek a rent deposit, or take someone somewhere to actually do something meaningful with them to "address problem solving skills" which doesn't involve sitting in a probation "interview" room, I'm simply told the money is not there.

      This is what's so frustrating....we do something like not follow "OASYS QA" guidance or "CRISSA formatting" and we are made to feel like our career is heading towards disciplinary....MOJ wastes £254 million and dump "N Delius" on us and that's OK. The double standards are astounding.

      Delete
  20. Until a few weeks gone I thought probation believed in rehabilitation and change.

    I’m a probation officer that’s helped many prisoners and probationers over many years. I failed vetting because I was in a YOI as a young girl. I don’t know if I’ll be allowed to continue as a probation officer.

    Ner a problem before. Have others experienced?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Churchill dog voice): Oh yes!

      In my experience it was after the Trusts were blossoming & beyond (2007 onwards). Fascist bullies in suits with "blue sky thinking", MBAs & "spreadsheet knowledge" usurped the old guard. They didn't want the likes of "offenders" showing them up for the snake oil scammers they were; they didn't acknowledge the concept of an 'ex' offender. In the words of one particularly unpleasant Trust director: "once a con, always a con". Another butter-wouldn't-melt-shiny-suited-fork-tongued CEO insisted on telling anyone & everyone that "a leopard doesn't change its spots".

      All of this well before they brought in the vitnary to put down the porrly sick creatures with no pedigree, aka "vetting".

      Still, you're all super-shiny simple serpents now, in the vice-like grip of Boris's government fruitbats, unable to do a thing without permission. A bit like Russia, but with internet & bring-a-bottle parties.

      Delete
    2. I'm presuming that your are a returning CRC member. From memory all PO (grade 4) staff were offered roles as POs/grade 4s. To change this is a breach of contract and there is a well established remedy for this!

      Also, dont forget to put in a claim for damages to reputation!

      £20k should suffice.

      Delete
  21. https://www.dannyshaw.net/post/street-talk

    What the MoJ hasn't trumpeted, however, is a 44-page document that has been sent to prisons, titled, 'Prepare for your future: Empower yourself for release'. I have seen a copy - and some of the advice it contains is anything but "empowering".

    excellent stuff from veteran justice reporter Danny Shaw

    ReplyDelete
  22. They cannot lawfully stop your grade role or job . The vetting is post your employment so if you had a decent able rep not Napo for your sake . Challenge the attack in law the cannot demonstrate your not fit nor committed any breaches of trust issue. The vetting a police led standard the Muppet management moj have bought into. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon 4 March 2022 at 17:56. Thanks for the replies. I have CRB and DBS clearance. This has ner been a problem before. My manager says we must have a meeting. I don’t think they know what to do locally. I’m told I can appeal the vetting fail decision. I’m very able to present my case. I have a union rep.

    Why isn’t the probation service proud of having qualified probation officers that have themselves been through the justice and prison systems?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Probation Service can!

      The Police and Cuvil Service not so much :/

      Delete
    2. Because the never genuinely believe in reform. Nor any stitched up by police victims nor any idea youngster make mistakes nor that deprivation poverty or social strata influences offending. Not if you want to work in probation. Worse alongside the police. They need a number for equality justification but now the imposed internal new level of trust is vetting out out good people. We all know types of offending behaviours wil be called reformed. Don't we.

      Delete
    3. That’s because probation is made up of management that look after themselves. They are not interested in rehabilitation or what front line staff think. This is the new world of probation.

      Delete
    4. Can someone clarify as I'm genuinely interested - does "passing" Visor vetting actually give you access to use Visor?? When this was initially rolled out some years ago now, I presumed that was the point, but then moved into another role which didn't require Visor...but I've seen or heard nothing about people actually USING Visor whether vetted or not, training about how to use it, what difference does it make to the job? And if people are using it, what difference does it actually make?

      Delete
    5. Vetting means you can access visor. They did not roll out visor on everyone’s laptop. If they did visor wouldn’t work because it’s so slow.

      Just like Arms is pointless, Visor is useless to probation work, because probation is not the police. I’ve accessed it once in many year. Total crap.

      Use of Visor is an excuse to justify vetting. Unions were too week to stop it.

      Delete
    6. And yes there is training, or used to be. You’ll be shown how to log in, find nominals, view any risk management plans sent to the police, and make silly searches like all criminals that drive red cars to see if your offender pops up.

      Visor useless to probation work, and an excuse to justify vetting. Unions were too week to stop it.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for replying, appreciate it. And you confirmed what I suspected....that Visor isn't necessary for our role, and most people don't have access to it anyway...so what the hell is the point....it's another completely pointless exercise which has been yet another irritant to the staff group...and yet they scratch their heads saying "why have we got so many red sites, we just don't understand??".

      They've invested so much in IT, data, Visor, vetting, ARMS, OASYS, most of which are completely crap and OASYS is utterly crap - and TOTALLY forgotten that NONE of this means shit to the people sitting in probation rooms, both "POPS" and "PPs" alike.

      Delete
    8. Visor is shite.

      There’s no point in using visor when the only decent things on there are the risk assessments we sent to the police.

      It’s like the police having additional DBS checks to access NDelius to read the pre-con documents they sent us.

      Vetting is the one of the biggest contract change for probation staff. Unions should have never allowed such an intrusive process.

      Delete
  24. March 7, 2022
    Independent domestic violence advocates in specialist courts – a backfire effect?

    Do programmes and interventions used in the criminal justice system work? Sometimes the best ideas fall flat on their face. And we only find out through quantitative research and evaluations. The sex offender treatment programme – an offender behaviour programme designed to reduce sex offending – was designed and accredited by experts. It ran for years before an impact evaluation discovered not only that it didn’t work, but that the prisoners who completed the programme were more likely to offend again than those who didn’t. The programme was promptly abandoned. Unfortunately, most other offender behaviour programmes run in prisons and by probation have no impact evaluation so, for all we know, they could be doing harm, good or nothing at all.

    We have few high quality evaluations of domestic abuse interventions designed to protect and support victims or to reduce the offending of those who commit domestic abuse. The main programme delivered in prisons and by probation (Building Better Relationships) has never had an impact evaluation in the ten years it has been running, doctorate research by Dr Nicole Renehan, suggests it doesn’t work for many men with complex needs.

    One of the major challenges facing those trying to get cases to court is victim “attrition” – that a high proportion of victims who report domestic abuse don’t want to stick with the criminal justice process. Those that do get to court can find the process traumatic. So campaigners in 2005 designed a new role – the IDVA or independent domestic violence advocate. IDVAs support complainants before (for high risk only) and during the court process. They give them emotional and practical support, explaining how the process works and sitting with them. They don’t give legal advice. A number of qualitative studies have shown how highly complainants value this service. Consequently the government has backed the expansion in their use and of their “sister” advocates, independent sexual violence advocates... contd

    ReplyDelete
  25. ... contd

    Until recently no one has checked what effect IDVAs might have on court outcomes and repeat victimisation, presumably because they have assumed that satisfaction with service is correlated with positive outcomes. But a new study suggests the link is broken – that use of IDVAs is correlated with some quite negative outcomes for the victims. The research was based on a specialist domestic violence court where IDVAs are available to support complainants some days a week but not others. The researchers (senior police officers doing post graduate study at the University of Cambridge, including Jackie Sebire ACC Beds) crunched all the outcome data for that court, comprising 559 domestic abuse trials. The data showed significant differences between days when the IDVA was available – and therefore presumably used by complainants – and days when there was no IDVA to support people. Cases heard on days with access to the IDVA service at court were found to have a 12% reduced likelihood of their accused abusers being convicted, a 10% increased risk of repeat victimisation, and the harm of repeat crimes is 700% higher than victims whose cases were heard without that opportunity.

    These are pretty surprising statistics, given that IDVAs are designed to make a positive difference to domestic abuse victims. There is of course no evidence of causation, but the correlation between the presence of the IDVA at court and more negative outcomes for the victims demands urgent further research to work out what is going on. Particularly since the Ministry of Justice recently announced further significant funding for IDVAs and ISVAs: “Crucially, £16m will fund the recruitment of more independent sexual violence and domestic abuse advisers across the country. They provide emotional and practical support for victims, while guiding them through the criminal justice process which many can find daunting”.

    There has been very little reaction from the government or domestic abuse charities about this important research. It is indeed disappointing for IDVAs and the organisations that support them. But the most important thing is to acknowledge the findings, discuss what they might mean and commission new research to check these findings and to deepen understanding of what works in reducing domestic abuse. There is already good (College of Policing) evidence that criminal sanctions do not reduce abuse. If you look at the sanctions meted out in the magistrates’ court, that makes sense – why should a fine or community payback change abusive behaviour? Why not resolve such incidents without going to court?

    Maybe we need to go back to first base and test or re-test all interventions designed to prevent and reduce abuse to check whether they work. And by work include a range of outcomes including victim wellbeing and feeling of safety as well as what effect the intervention has on police call-outs, repeat victimisation and offending. With finite resources to support victims and change abusive behaviour, we can’t afford not to follow the evidence

    https://www.transformjustice.org.uk/independent-domestic-violence-advocates-in-specialist-courts-a-backfire-effect/

    ReplyDelete
  26. Emotions: Possibly the most sad I have been at work this week, in my entire long and dedicated probation career. Since TR, I have been angry, resentful, anxious. I have been in SFO process and been frightened and defensive. I have worked myself to stressed bits securing accommodation for prison leavers, I have wept with vulnerable women clients. It always felt worthwhile emotional labour. And my profession always was for me a noble cause.
    But now my commitment to trying to "save probation", the noble cause, is dwindling. It's like living with a beloved parent who has dementia. You love them, but they arent really there anymore. A process of advance bereavement. In my own way, I am also gone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's like living with a beloved parent who has dementia."

      I beg to differ. Your analogy suggests they were once competent & effective.

      Its more like being placed in the care of the crass, vindictive, bullying relatives you know were responsible for the death of your parents, & who have subsequently profited from & squandered any legacy.

      Delete
    2. The Probation Service, your directors and managers, do not care about your diligence, hard work, or whether you stay or go. Probation will chew you up, spit you out, and replace you within a few days.

      Wake up and smell the coffee. You’re just another employee on the hamster wheel.

      Delete