Napo Annual Report 2019/20 Part 2

Professional and Training Network

1. After the AGM met in October 2019 the NEC agreed to change the format of the committee structure in an effort to provide members with a more inclusive means in which to contribute to the work of the former committees. While the Negotiating and Equal Rights committee retain their committee structure, the Probation and Training committee joined the other committees in becoming a networks. 

2. The aim was to ensure that those who had an interest in the work of the networks could make a contribution in all or a part of the work allocated within Napo’s operational plan. 

3. Under the old structure 8 places were allocated with the opportunity to meet once in person and additional work to be supported by telephone and email contact. The move to a network was also designed to encourage numbers to register throughout the year as the committee structure was more recently carrying vacancies. 

4. At the start of the Napo year there could have been little appreciation of the challenges that would frustrate the efforts of the network to pursue the business of the 6 motions it was allocated following last year’s AGM. Prior to the pandemic there was already pressure on the time members could devote to the network. However, all the usual demands were overshadowed by the impact of the Covid-19 virus which has impacted upon every aspect of working and union life. 

5. Prior to the impact of the pandemic the network set a meeting for February and after a number of members were unable to contribute for a variety of reasons, efforts to set up further meetings led to the abandonment of a further three and cancellation of another two. 

6. A virtual meeting was eventually held in July I was elected chair of the network. The July meeting was constructive, and I am grateful to all as work was undertaken to consolidate earlier decisions. Despite this, it was not entirely possible to progress the motions in the way that the network had originally planned. 

7. However, some progress was made including on Motion 9. This was on “Fostering the Probation Profession”. Taking this along with the sentiments from Motion 12 which identified that current training arrangements were not fit for purpose. This was especially the case in respect of identified failures to support those being trained to undertake the work as probation officers. 

8. A survey was undertaken with members establishing their views and experience of training along with their views on OASys. There was a credible response which unsurprisingly exposed the inadequacies of the current training and reflected universal condemnation by respondents. One quote from the survey summed up the majority view that: “I can categorically state that as a mentor for a number of PQUIPS that the training is NOT fit for purpose. Those coming into it are not given a fair induction, training is woeful and line managers are too swamped to support them. Many of the PQUIPS in my area have felt very isolated”. 

9. This led to an article being written by Tania Bassett the Link official and published in Napo Magazine highlighting concerns raised. In addition, the network has written seeking a meeting to review training arrangements on the findings of the survey and to discuss recent accounts from members about their appalling experience that has led in some cases to them considering seeking alternative careers at a time when ministers are seeking to expand staff numbers by a thousand. 

10. A letter has been written on behalf of the network seeking a meeting with the relevant body and head of service on reviewing the quality of the training the experience of the varying support offered to PQUIPS. Including dealing with the capacity of the current arrangements to equip and support new entrants to undertake the role of a qualified probation officer. 

11. In respect on Motion 10 on replacing OASys, contributions to the survey identified how respondents saw it as a repetitive and cumbersome assessment system tool. This was before the additional inclusion of ARMS and the 4 pillars which some would suggest were set to crumble in supporting an assessment process that was “past its sell by date”. 

12. No one gave it a rating and the comments varied from suggesting it should be abolished to the frustration in trying to make it work. Including how the document failed to support a credible sentence plan in its current format. That for some, the time spent completing the assessment would be better spent with people than completing an assessment. One that seemed driven by meeting the demands of quality assurance in support of arbitrary scores on a repetitive set of questions. It was seen by some as antiquated and lacked focus on factors that dealt with desistance and led to the completion of an ineffective supervision plan. Leading to the question exactly who the assessment was being prepared for.  

13. Quotes from respondents included: 

• We must get rid of the SDR OASys Report (as it is not user) friendly, you frequently lose work, (it) does not read or flow properly, (or) paragraphed properly, is far too difficult to go back to work on (it) pulls through information which is not properly laid out; 

• I have for a long time held the view OASys should be abolished completely. It was never helpful or effective and is mind-numbingly repetitive, laborious and time-consuming. 

• OASys is not user friendly… it seems to have been developed to help someone other than a Probation Officer. It asks complex questions and hopes that a simple number reply will provide the answer. Inspectors often comment that we know our cases very well and are doing good work but that this not reflected in the written tools. 

14. Further work is planned on this including ensuring the timing accredited to completing the combined assessments re ARMS is taken into account; along with seeking a modernisation of the tool to avoid repetitive nature of the document while seeking to make its capacity to be used more effectively in other formats such as court and parole as well MAPPA screening forms. It is of concern to the Professional and Training network that some CRC developed innovations, particularly in respect of assessment tools, that have been developed using considerable sums of public money and that are in most cases considered to be improvements, regrettably may not now make the transition to the NPS or form part of planned future developments. 

15. In respect of Motion 11 about the Duplication of Work the network has not been able to devote the work it deserved. The pressure on staff regarding the unrealistic deadlines being demanded for Parole reviews, even in cases where the date of release would not be changed through completion remains an issue. These issues have been raised at the engagement meetings and depending on capacity, work will continue and this issue will be on the agenda and addressed in the forthcoming year. 

16.The content of Motion 12 “Training is not fit for the Job” has been used to inform the work undertaken on Motion 9. It is intended to use this motion to press for the reinstatement of the Probation Training Assurance Board which has not met for some time. 

17. With regard to Motion 13 on Protecting Role Boundaries, this has been taken up by the Forum. The intention is for the P&T network to work with the Forum on revisiting the policy written some time ago on role boundaries with a view to updating and providing recommendations. 

18. Work has been undertaken with the Editorial Board of the Probation Journal on Motion 14 on “Trust me I am a Professional” over the restrictive nature of PI 38/2014 governing outside activities of probation staff. The board sought informal contact with the centre, and on the basis of being encouraged to make a case for relaxing the constraints on the submission for publication of article, wrote a position paper. At the time of writing a response from the centre was eagerly awaited. 

19. In support of the paper the network has written to the directorate seeking a meeting to review the PI with a view to removing barriers to practitioners publishing articles related to practice and their research. Freedom to discuss and write honestly and critically about practice and professional issues and the ability to freely involve a wide range of people with different voices (including, service users, decision makers, academics, practitioners and other professionals) are all essential for our future as a well-researched, scrutinised, defined, healthy, dynamic, and vibrant profession, fit for the 21st century, that we all feel proud to call our own.

Latest From Napo 216

Here we have the latest bulletin from Napo sent yesterday and interestingly someone seems to have discovered the Napo News Twitter button because that's suddenly burst back into life "after awhile". A lot of it is to do with that utter waste of time called OASys that could have been invented specially for those command and control freaks at HMPPS:-  

Bulletin 27 – 2 July 2020

OASys changes

Over the past few weeks we have repeatedly raised with the NPS concerns about changes being made to OASys to incorporate ARMS assessments and the 4 Pillars approach to risk.

The main concerns are as follows:

• Lack of training – especially in current context with members working remotely. Emailing out a powerpoint slide pack is no substitute for proper training and we are very concerned this will lead to members not properly understanding what is being asked of them and ending up being criticised for poor practice further on down the line.
• Issues relating to prison OASys completion. Remembering that OASys will be done by prison staff POMs for some clients, will those prison POMs have had the relevant training for ARMS and the four pillars approach? Some NPS prison POMs did not have the initial ARMS training as they didn’t need it. There is also a concern about the relevance of doing an assessment to support dynamic management of risk in the community while the client is still in custody.
• The integration into OASys means ARMS now needs to be done within the 15-day window for OASys rather than the longer timescale previously allowed for ARMS separately, this will place increased pressure on staff at a time when they are already struggling with excessive workloads.
• It isn’t clear how the additional WMT timing for ARMS will now be allocated to the tool which potentially leaves staff with a shorter timescale to do ARMS and no recognition of it in the WMT.
• The changes do solve some of the issues of duplication between the ARMS template and the OASys template but they also create different duplication between OASys and other reports (MAPPA and Parole) so it doesn’t result in any net gain in term of efficiency

Napo was not consulted on these changes but as soon as we knew about them we began making representations about all of the above and asked HMPPS to pause the roll out to fix the issues and allow for more consultation and crucially proper training. Until today we had received no proper response however we have been promised a formal response by early next week. In the meantime members with concerns relating to any of these issues should raise them formally with their line manager in supervision to ensure that there is a record in case of future practice concerns being highlighted.

Probation Change Programme – a chance to influence the team 

This week Katie Lomas was invited to speak alongside one of the CRC Directors at an event being held for the HMPPS Probation Change Programme team. This team is made up of staff from across the MoJ, some from a Probation background but many from other technical specialisms. The invite was specifically to give examples of the thoughts and feelings members have about the change to come. This was an excellent opportunity to give an unfiltered view of what it’s really like for those facing these changes on the frontline, in CRCs and in the NPS. It was a chance to make sure the team know that TR has been harmful to staff and this may at times affect the ability of members to respond or engage positively. This was also a chance to explain the mixed feelings many have about the future and the fears about moving to the NPS and how this isn’t “going back” as the NPS was only created in 2014.

Drugs, Alcohol and Justice – All Party Parliamentary Group

This group, co-chaired by Mary Glindon MP and Lord Ramsbotham met this week to consider services for those moving from custody to the community. Katie Lomas was invited to speak about the changes to Probation and the opportunities for partnership working with specialist services. It is vital that the next iteration of the Probation system returns genuine partnership working, at local level, with specialist services, especially for drug and alcohol treatment and support. Getting this right will result in reductions in reoffending and the prison population but it can’t be done on the cheap and services need to be properly resourced. Katie also called for better and faster sharing of information and services that are flexible to meet the needs of all clients, not just those best motivated to engage.

Napo HQ

Cultural Reflections 2

I notice that in parallel with yesterday's discussion there was some similar introspection over on Facebook:-  

Someone close to me was explaining about a friend who had got into trouble and was sent to prison. How was her Probation Officer I asked? She said ‘the lady at Court was nice’ and then ‘her Probation Officer is about 21 and awful’. So - stereotypes of any type are odious. This is not about age per se, this is not about anyone individually, but I think this reflects a new cultural attitude, a pride (as in lack of humility), a lack of awareness of privilege, a lack of curiosity, a lack of wonder about people. There are too many frankly unkind and slap dash POs coming through. There is a culture that rewards this. Someone said to me once (probably when I was young and they could see a certain arrogance in me) - ‘you have to earn the right to speak into someone’s life’. It’s true, you do. If you don’t bother with this, you become ‘awful’ - which not a good look.

Nicely said. ‘‘Twas ever thus.

Oh you mean that The Probation Service does NOT reflect our communities and is filled with university educated and upwardly mobile, young, white females? Surely not?

Perhaps this is a manifestation of the culture of probation practice. However, I know some young POs who are considerate and caring and go above and beyond in their work with those serving sentences. Maybe she was unlucky as there are always bad apples!

Is this about making younger or inexperienced officers feel bad? There are POs of all ages and experience who are not very good at their jobs. I know a huge raft of younger officers who are doing an incredible job in challenging circumstances. Also some of our clients often take a dislike to their officer because they are actually doing a good job! Sometimes it can take weeks or months of mutual relationship building to reach a good understanding of the purpose of the whole thing, and having to carry out tasks such as enforcement can impact on this, but it doesn't always mean that the person is doing a bad job.

No I was at pains to say it’s not about age it’s about the relationship between professional experience/culture of the organisation. And the relationship between maturity and professionalism. I want to know if something has changed in the organisation as many have observed it - I’m not the only one who sees it. But how to go beyond sense and into evidence I don’t know. User voice is no more in London.

I was a PO for over 10 years. Temping for the last 4 years. I had my temp contract terminated because an offender I had inherited from a female PO put in an official complaint about me for being intimidating and the SPO terminated my contract without an investigation! The offender in question is a sex offender who was annoyed at me because I didn't change his appointment because he wanted to go on a date! I had already changed his appointment due to his employment. He said his previous PO would have allowed him to go on his date and I was being unreasonable. He missed his appointment so I sent him a warning letter. He showed up to his next appointment and then refused to engage in the supervision session, didn't wanna take his sun glasses off, refused to answer any questions. He was on licence and was refusing to engage in the ARMS assessment. I reminded him of his licence conditions and the part about recall. Then he claimed I was intimidating him had upset him so much he was going to go home and get drunk and do drugs. Btw, I was his first male officer! The SPO said that I should have been more understanding. Understanding of what? I reminded her of his licence conditions and the possibility of an SFO because no ARMS had been done before and the previous PO had never enforced any missed appointments or enforced his licence.

I had only been 21 for 2 months when I started in the Probation service in 2014, and I found it tough with some older male service users, as they took one look at me and judged my ability and knowledge as they had children older than me. Now I’m 25 and I still regularly get asked how old I am, which is very frustrating when you are trying to be taken seriously. However, sometimes it is professionals in Probation and other services that seem to judge my ability more than the offenders. This job has taught me not to judge a book by its cover, and I would hope that my colleagues do not judge me by my age, but by my practice.

Absolutely it’s all about the practice and that is what I care about. I really didn’t mean to offend and just want to encourage all new POs who care and are doing a great job. I remember well being a new trainee and it was very stressful and very rewarding, it’s an extraordinary job.

No offence taken, just wanted to highlight how this job can be extra tough on young PO’s! 

Very very true!

I think the process of how we no longer look for the welfare aspects reflects how people are trained. I don’t think age comes into it if you really do care and want to make a difference. I think as individuals our lives shape us and as such some youngsters coming through have some real life experiences. So your right age is not the factor it’s about the care of what happens inside and outside of probation. If this could be on the training agenda then I think we’d have some pretty good officers to keep the service going forward.

Just spoken to a new PQIP recruit who explained the new NPS selection process and he said it’s resulted in a far more diverse intake. Great! But I still don’t see the absolute need for a degree.

I was having a discussion about this very thing this week. Sadly, I think with the split, many amazing experienced officers have gone and have been replaced with new who can then be moulded into the new way of working, hitting targets, paperwork takes priority, 10 minutes per service user, call centres and not understanding the relationship between NPS and CRC or between the service users across the board. You can quite easily have a person on NPS now and never know that their cousin, brother in-law and partner may all be on CRC. I think it's a sad reflection of how the Government have broken this amazing service.

Great discussion. I agree that there are good and bad officers of all ages. I think that the managers are an important part of the Equation.

A manager who does not meet probationers face to face tends to see issues in terms of enforcement and this rubs off on younger officers. Also we have some managers who appear to have put themselves up for the SPO role because they do not want to work with our client group. It worries me that some senior staff lose sight of the fact that a good quality relationship with a probationer is the most effective tool we have!

The 'Go-To' Place for Advice

Increasingly Facebook is becoming the place where probation staff are not just venting their frustrations, but also where professional issues are being discussed due to the increasing bureaucratisation and chaos prevalent everywhere in the workplace:-

Is anyone on here working in prison? How many of you feel forgotten, demoralised and disenfranchised? Anyone else think cOMiC is shambles, a waste of time and staffing? I'm working from a local cat B, ready to shelve my job at the drop of a hat. Half the OM's I contact don't even bother to reply. We are managed in person XXXXX by an SPO who also manages a XXXXXX prison. The list goes on. We can't write Oasys if the case is high risk and owned by the OM who half the time too busy to do so. Prison sucks.

It’s not that we don’t bother to reply it’s more like we are firefighting community cases.

I guessed as much. We have folk here for over a year, no sentence plan, going nowhere.

Yes I’m sure mine aren’t up to date. Many of us have been managing high workloads for over a year and although may have gone down a bit, we are having to deal with the accumulative affect of struggling for so long. Two days a week (I have a four day week) I’m at the PPO team - I love it there but recently they’ve become so much more chaotic that more time is spent on them.

Definitely fire-fighting. I hate not having the time to write/visit/sentence plan. I do always respond to colleagues within the prison though. Hope you & yours are keeping well.

You’ve managed to capture the reasons for OMiC in one post.

From the opposite perspective I have recently been tasked with trying to get over 100 cases of people in prison up to date with OASYS and sentence planning and have been shocked by the lack of response from staff in prison so I think there are issues both in and out of prison. I worked in a CAT B local for over 5 years and then got stuck following TR and eventually had to apply as an external candidate for a job with the service where I had worked for 15 years.

I work in am open prison it is extremely busy and our caseloads are high. Yes there are frustrations as anywhere I imagine but I am fortunate to work in a really good CPO team and a good wider OMU team. The support of my colleagues makes my job not just bearable but enjoyable too.

I always respond to my custody counterparts. Without you, arranging interviews and SPRs is impossible. A good relationship between OM and OS is vital. I don't agree with E3. I think a home probation officer is vital but a community OM can't do the job without a good OS. I value you.

What is OMiC?

Prisons:Written question - 3726

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which prisons operate a personal officer programme.

Prison service orders do not require Governors to operate a personal officer programme and there is no central register of which establishments do operate one.

The review of Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) introduces a new role of key worker who will have a case load of approximately six prisoners, whom they will guide support and coach to help reduce the negative impact of imprisonment. Key work is similar but not the same as a personal officer scheme. Where personal officer schemes do currently exist they will be replaced by key workers.

The OMiC model is currently being rolled out in 10 pathfinder prisons and will be rolled out across the remaining closed prison estate by the end of March 2019.

Now I'm confused. I thought offender management in custody was about POs going into prison to manage their custody cases from the inside rather than the outside. But if that were the case I can't imagine it will be caseloads of around six! I think I must be mixing some things up. Can anyone help unravel my scramble?

Is anyone going to the 'Design' Check' for OMiC events that are running in November......??

Community is worse !!! Stay put.

I was posted January 2015. I will be near retirement before the powers that be get their act together.

I agree, community is worse, OM's seem to get it in the neck for everything, I spent my whole Saturday yesterday on the work laptop to meet never ending targets despite being off sick this week with a bad chest infection!!

OMG .. that is not good.

I'm having the exact opposite experience. Went into prison January & loving it - yes it has it's problems but had I not transferred - I'd have walked! The community is a shambles & my heart bleeds when I think of the turmoil our service is in... OMiC is kinda on the back burner - Northern Region has 70 vacancies for PO's - if they haven't enough for community - they ain't gonna be transferred into prison... Our uniformed OS's are almost permanently detailed onto the wings as a result of staff shortages so we try to help where we can. In general, at this time, PO's are having to hold all the Lifers & IPP's along with 4yrs+ recalls for Parole - it's mad but I think it's more manageable than community cases...

--oo00oo--

Anyone else in the NPS experiencing a big drive on making sure any missing data on Ndelius is completed? And back dating housing and ETE on every trigger point; (whatever that means)

Yes the back dating stuff has had to be done and updating all info in ndelius.

Yeah we got told by Friday. Well I'm only at work tomorrow and in meeting in morning. Been spending a lot of time trying to find accommodation for a vulnerable young man - a PPO currently in an AP. Aka my job.

Do your CA's not complete HETE data within your Teams??

Usually but it's the backdating. I'm talking of.

We have to do our own HETE stuff. At loads of different points. My induction checklist is 2 A4 sides long with things to do/remember.

I've spent hours on this vulnerable PPO trying to source, beg re accommodation. To me that's the vital part of what we do. We have had a list of all things to be done and POs are all over .. so I don't know where we are supposed to have time to do it all.

Not just NPS.... CRCs have had to do this too. On top of all else and no CAs to do it....! x

It's barmy.

What other missing data are you having to do?

I think that's it. TBH I am so busy I've not read emails in depth. We've also ARMs to do, e learning, research and print out evidence for appraisal, etc

Snap to all that apart from ARMs x

Sometimes I think I may have made the right decision to change career! I don’t miss the admin, but do miss the face to face work.

It's just feels like we are data entry people.

In CRC the same. Fancy them paying through the nose for a data entry person.

Yeah the Secretary of State has requested the statistics, hence the 3 line whip.

Has he now!! Just shows they don't have a clue.

HETE is massive in CRC and we have to do it ourselves at regular points and the dates have to be accurate or it's a missed target.

It's Barmy - what is more important that or seeing and doing stuff to support the people we work with.

Yes but offenders don't have to provide evidence so it's useless!!

I’m a CA and we’ve had to do all the backdating in Xxxxxxxxx with the OMs assisting as and when changes occur. Evidence is something that’s on the radar soon.

It's just crazy.

It’s taken us a long time but luckily we have a temp at the moment and he’s been on the case. We wouldn’t have been able to get it done alongside day to day stuff if we didn’t have him spending so much time doing it.

It’s one thing backdating information if it’s accurate, was gathered on time, and you’ve just not had time to enter it - though that rather defeats the object of the target and covers up the fact that these targets cannot all be met given how much work PO’s are doing. It’s quite another being pushed to invent data to make targets look like they are being met and to massage performance figures.

Exactly. And what's more important data stats or working with the people we supervise and spending time supporting them.

HETE data all done by Officers in Xxxxxxxxx. We had a visit from a chap from HMPPS a couple of months ago and I voiced my doubts over the usefulness of the data, quite forcefully and at great length. He told me HMPPS/ NOMS were as aware as I was that the data was statistically unsound and had suggested the folly be dropped but had been told to continue.

They think that's more important than preventing re-offending and actually helping people...what a mess we're in!

Such a shame that paperwork is more important than people these days.

It sounds like a combination of a difficult Sudoko and putting the right bins out on the right day. Brain numbing.

Micro management. Classic case where higher managers come back from their holidays refreshed. It'll wear off a bit towards Christmas.

Dreaded Hete!!! CRC too!!

Awful isn't it. And how is that going to reduce harm and offending?

--oo00oo--

A practice issue - any offender on an order (inc SSO) without any RAR requirements so no supervision - should they be seen or contacted on regular basis and/or if they refuse contact is this enforceable?

In orders under the new legislation supervision is implied to manage the order and can be enforced, see the guidance on the legislation for evidence.

If it's a stand alone SSO then no. If the SSO or CO has another req and is under the NPS, then they have an 'overseeing officer' and the guideline here in the Xxxxx is see them at the beginning to try and ascertain if there are any issues which need looking at. If not, then only if they breach.

We use RAR days for additional appts with other agencies, supervision is the community order and they are seen for the length of that.

I think if stand alone SSO then no but if there are other requirements then the order is supervised and this is enforceable, the frequency of reporting is based on risk, if high risk it's weekly (at least) until risk reduces, is medium risk still based on 16 weekly appointments and then monthly? Then low for monthly/every 6 months? This is based on NPS experience. I'm off on maternity so not sure if this is still relevant?

I think it's clear that each area and cluster has its own views!

I had a man on a C/O with UPW and a programme. He completed the UPW and then the programme days were deleted at court as he couldn't attend due to work pattern but I've been advised I still need to see him until the end of the order under the 'implied supervision'.

Where does this leave us legally - if the offender refuses contact do we breach and would the courts accept the breach?

I believe breach would be enforceable due to the wording of the law around court orders.

If you can prove he needs to be seen, has criminogenic needs which he's refusing to acknowledge etc etc then yes.

Do people agree these RAR days are rubbish!!

None of it makes sense. It was rushed through by Grayling and its obvious in its failings. PSS is ridiculous and again, areas and clusters use it completely differently.

Is there a source where we can check this - not internet as we don't have access!

I was lost at RAR! So pleased I'm retired too, although it took me a long time to adjust from the constant treadmill of Probation. So what is RAR????

Stand alone SSO you can not. If it CO with UPW only the CO expires once UPW hours are complete

Stand alone UPW or stand alone curfew - no supervision otherwise we see the participant - RAR days we use for offence focused work/workshops.

"How times have changed. Using Facebook to check enforcement. So pleased I've retired."

Guest Blog 67

Whitewashing the Probation Service

For the past few years we’ve all been struggling with the changes to the Probation Service. While we’ve been preoccupied there’s been quite a few questionable policies and procedures implemented under the radar in both the NPS and the CRC’s. The strategy that is most insulting to me is the increasing policisation and prisonisation of the Probation Service. I may have just made these words up, so by ‘policisation’ and ‘prisonisation’ I mean the turning of Probation Officers into police and prison officers, or more accurately, turning us into the lackeys of the police and prison services.

I could start with MAPPA and the subservient position probation can at times have at these meetings in comparison to the police and other professionals, particularly at Level 3 meetings. But I have to admit to quite liking MAPPA meetings because probation still has a say and we all know the meetings would be pointless without us. I don’t know why IOM and the police have adopted our ‘Offender Manager’ title. I don’t really mind because I’ve never referred to myself as an ‘Offender Manager’, which is quite a silly title since our ethos is historically grounded in rehabilitation, anti-labelling and generally being quite nice to people on probation to stop them being ‘offenders’. 

We’re under constant pressure to return people to the Court, recall to prison and oppose release based on ‘risk’, but we all know we’re not really an enforcement or risk management agency either. We seem to have put aside encouraging individuals to be honest, and instead we’re using polygraph tests and drug tests to trick and force individuals to disclose information. I even saw an article on the NPS intranet recently introducing the drive to encourage probation staff to monitor each other and ‘snitch’ on 'corrupt' probation colleagues (I’ve since stopped taking home stationery!)

All these things above we’re getting used to, it’s every day stuff, but there are two things that are really beginning to irk me most. The first is ARMS assessments which we’re forced to complete on all on probation offenders convicted of sexual offences. Now I’m a jobsworth so I was amongst the first in my office to complete the mandatory ARMS (Active Risk Assessment) training and have completed one for every relevant individual on my caseload. 

I haven’t done any “required” joint home visits with the police, I can’t bring myself to voluntarily sit in a police car, marked or unmarked, nor am I willing to be part of a police interrogation because I’m a Probation Officer not a police officer. While ARMS may benefit the police ‘public protection units’ who are the only ones that actually read it, it is a pointless exercise for probation staff. I’ve completed my appraisal-linked ARMS quota and I can safely say that ARMS is of no use to us, particularly as I’ve already completed on each relevant individual an induction, OASys risk assessment, home visits and multiple supervision sessions, and more.

The second thing that irks me is Vetting. I understand the need for CRB checks, DBS checks and all that sort of stuff, but this process has taken such an intrusive form with the implementation of Vetting to police standards. For those that haven’t had the privilege yet, according to the long since implemented PI 03/2014, while we were preoccupied, this means;

“Once staff transition to the NPS, they will be subject to the same vetting checks and requirements as other HQ personnel. Where NPS staff apply to move to other NOMS HQ and prison locations they will be subject to a full security vetting check. If NPS staff move to another role within NPS, vetting will only be required if they are subject to a higher level of vetting for the post. This will be a minimum level of Enhanced Check 2, but may be higher dependant on the level of risk and type of work undertaken.”

Now you may be thinking “well I’m not changing role at the moment so I can file this PI in the trash with all the other important NPS instructions”. Well you can’t because our probation directors and unions have allowed Vetting to be forced upon us. Firstly, Vetting now replaces CRB/DBS checks now we’re part of the (un)civil service. Secondly, all ‘offender management’ staff are required to use the police Visor database as a “reasonable management instruction”, and that’s whether to want or need to use it or not. For this privilege we all must be vetted first, and the Vetting itself is a “reasonable management instruction” too.

“ViSOR users are now subject to additional Vetting requirements by the police who as data owners require NOMS staff to undergo Non Police Personnel Vetting (NPPV) at level 2 or 3 depending on access rights.” PI 03/2014.

So there we have it, even though we don’t need Visor and it is not necessary for all probation staff to have access to what is actually a piss-poor database. The probable truth is that we’re being vetted simply because police officers and prison officers are vetted, and the Ministry of Justice probably see it as a way of further sidelining probation and speeding up our extinction. If any of you, like me, have been through this process already you’ll know how intrusive, stressful and worrying it actually is, and that you can fail it. 

The minimum level of Enhanced Check 2 that will being forced upon us includes PNC and local police intelligence checks, checks on other non-conviction databases and Special Branch for applicant, spouse/partner and co-residents (including parents and siblings); military and Professional Standards checks on the applicant if required; Credit Reference checks on the applicant, including history of credit card refusal, debts and CCJ’s. I’ve seen a circular stating this may adversely affect a small number of staff but I think this could affect a significant number of probation staff, some with past criminal records, some with family members or spouses with criminal records, and some with bad credit histories past and present.

So what do the unions say? Not much, well this is Ian Lawrence’s (Napo General Secretary) position on Vetting;

“Unless the reason for failure of vetting is such that a disciplinary case is warranted then no member of staff will lose their employment as a result of vetting failure. Anyone failing the vetting process would be redeployed or have a restricted caseload or other adjustments to allow them to continue to work”.

I’m going to end by saying that the Probation Service used to represent rehabilitation and change. Our wealth was largely in the diversity of our staff group which included people from all walks of life, ranging from rich-gits and Tory-boys sitting next to ex-soldiers, ex-miners and those from beyond the fringes of regular society, including the poor, the underclass, recovered addicts, reformed gang members, and the like. This all now ends because once again our probation bosses have bowed to the will of the Ministry of Justice, this time putting police procedures and prison logic over probation staff and practice. I wonder if Vetting is why the ex-offender mentors and volunteers have disappeared from the NPS?

On a side but related note, the recent David Lammy Review told us that certain groups are more likely to be ‘over-policed’, stopped and searched, prosecuted and therefore have criminal records. He concluded as part of his solution that the inequality should be addressed and even that criminal records should be sealed to help former offenders combat discrimination and find work. 

I watched our Prime Minister vow to end the racism and discrimination that certain groups face in every walk of life, including the CJS and workplace. I am sure the Ministry of Justice will be tasked to get its house in order because of the bias and discrimination in the justice system. While the MoJ and the UK in general is trying to achieve what it couldn’t dating from the MacPherson (Stephen Lawrence) Report and before, the NPS will be simultaneously dismissing probation officers for their circumstances and mistakes of yesteryear.

Sadly, I know many probation staff of all backgrounds that have past criminal histories, criminal family members and financial problems, mainly due to bad life choices, and in some cases stemming from the earlier forms of the discrimination and disadvantage described in the Lammy Review. I couldn’t think of anyone better placed to support those on probation facing similar experiences, and to help balance our unfair justice system, but now that’s only if they are able to get past Vetting. With the Lammy Review in mind, if those adversely affected by Vetting are disproportionately originating from working-class family backgrounds, ethnic minorities or marginalised communities then this could end up being seen as a ‘whitewashing’ of the Probation Service.

Thanks for reading.

Probation Officer
Too many years to retire