Prison and Drugs

The new justice minister David Gauke is due to make a major speech today regarding the crisis in our prisons and with particular reference to drugs. It won't tackle any of the underlying issues of course, but it's fascinating to see how the Prison Governors Association cite Chris Grayling's infamous Offender Rehabilitation Act as being routinely 'abused' by Organised Crime Gangs using recalled prisoners as drug 'mules'. Another example of the law of unintended consequences in relation to drug policy to go alongside that of Mandatory Drug Testing. Here's Alan Travis of the Guardian:-      

Prisoners linked to gangs face being moved to tougher jails

Plan will recategorise prisoners into higher-security prisons if they have high criminality risk

More than 6,000 prisoners believed to have links to organised crime gangs face being moved to tougher jails under proposals to be unveiled by the justice secretary, David Gauke. The plans to recategorise prisoners into higher-security prisons based on their continuing risk of criminality in jail, rather than their original sentence, are to be outlined in Gauke’s first speech on tackling the prisons crisis in England and Wales.

The government is spending £14m on tackling organised criminal gangs in prisons, including on creating a serious organised crime unit within the Prison Service. Prison governors have said organised crime gangs have gained a substantial foothold in jails and in some instances have greater authority and control than staff.

Mitch Albutt, national officer of the Prison Governors Association (PGA), recently described how organised crime gangs had built a lucrative trade in psychoactive drugs inside jails based on coercion, beatings and violence that could turn substances worth £200 on the street into £2,000 profits in prison.

“This pervasive environment of threats and violence exposes individuals’ vulnerabilities, resulting in increased levels of self-harm, suicide and requests for segregation or transfer,” Albutt wrote in the latest PGA newsletter. Gauke will announce an initiative to crack down on these serious organised criminal gangs that operate outside and increasingly inside prisons. The prison service estimates that more than 6,500 of the 86,000-strong prison population have links to organised crime gangs.

“We are taking action to bolster our defences at the prison gate and going after the organised criminal gangs,” Gauke will say. “I want them to know that as a result of the action we are taking, they have no place to hide. Through our covert and intelligence-led operations, we will track them down.”

The justice secretary will disclose that criminal gangs not only use drones to fly illicit drugs into prisons but can direct them to specific cell windows and have even resorted to coating children’s paintings in psychoactive substances.

He will say: “The criminal networks and supply chains have got larger and more complex. And new technologies have empowered gangs to be more sophisticated and brazen about the way drugs are smuggled in. From the conventional to the cunning, by design or by device, through fear or intimidation, these criminal gangs will stop at nothing to maintain their access to such a lucrative market. We will remove their influence from our prisons so that they can become places of hope not despair, of aspiration not assaults, because my approach is a practical one, based on what works and what’s right.”

The current system of categorising prisoners by their sentence length determines whether they serve the majority of their time inside a range of security regimes, from a category-A high-security prison to a category-D open jail. A decision to give a higher security rating to prisoners based on their activities inside jail represents a major change in prison rules.

The new prisons minister, Rory Stewart, recently called for an effort to clean up filthy jails and tackle drugs, saying his priorities were “windows, searches and walls”. The PGA has said the level of budget cuts faced by the prison service without any reduction in the prison population has had an impact on stability, decency and safety inside jails.

--oo00oo--

Here is the PGA newsletter article referred to above:-

We all know the depressing state most of our Prisons are in, despite the enormous effort and hard work our members and staff deliver every day. One awful aspect of this are the levels of violence which have reached epidemic proportions, however there is a potential solution should the holders of the purse strings choose to fund it. 

It is clear that those in our care cannot engage in a rehabilitative journey if their environment is unsafe. Drugs pervade every aspect of Prison life effecting those around it with particular notoriety to New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) also now referred to as PS. This one particular label causes chaos in our Establishments and can turn a healthy individual into a medical emergency or a trusted orderly into a frenzied ultra-violent assaulter. 

I believe that due to many compounding issues the Organised Crime Gangs (OCG) have gained a substantial foothold in our Prisons and in some instances have greater authority and control than staff. 

The Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) was introduced resulting in short term prisoners being released on licence. Evidence details the abuse of ORA by OCGs, they coerce individuals to commit minor breaches of their licence conditions resulting in them returning to custody for 7 or 14 days. However the OCGs will have these individuals “plugged” (illicit items concealed in a bodily orifice), then dropped off at a Police station to hand themselves in and thus the illicit items end up in our prisons. In fact I have heard colleagues describe this as a very lucrative business model. To give an idea of how lucrative intelligence at one Establishments indicated that NPS with a street value of £200 would return a profit of £2000. With the control of the supply of drugs comes the violence, beatings are ordered and rival mules “spooned”, an item (usually a spoon) is inserted into the anus to retrieve any secreted package. This pervasive environment of threats and violence exposes individual’s vulnerabilities resulting in increased levels of self-harm, suicide and requests for segregation or transfer, (which is evidenced in HMPPS data). All of these factors divert valuable limited resources away from the delivery of a structured engaging regime resulting in general frustration and increased levels of anxiety and incidents. This ultimately effects the resilience of our staff causing issues with attendance and retention. Thus we descend further into the inescapable grip of the maelstrom. 

Although we deal with the symptoms of drugs in our prisons we need to bring greater focus and energise our ability to deal with the causes. If we are able to choke off the supply routes then the OCGs will eventually abandon a money losing business model. 

In 2015 the Prisons Minister Andrew Selous and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling were so impressed with the Body Scanner technology that one was promised to every Prison, with the Centre for Social Justice quoting it as a game changer. I recently visited HMP Belmarsh to view this equipment and hear firsthand from the team that use it. To say that I was mightily impressed is an understatement, the team enthused its abilities and showed me evidence of how it detected illicit items secreted externally and internally on prisoners. They also used it if a prisoner was suspected of receiving an item during visits or in fact any intelligence led requirement. 

It is most effective if used (as part of an overarching strategy) and with a small group of well-trained dedicated staff and if it has the potential to mitigate all of the above then why would you not devote your resources to achieve this endeavour. The hard outcomes that this approach can deliver are: 

• Reduction in medical emergencies and the associated staffing resource and cumulative stress. 
• Reduction in violence and the associated staffing implications and cumulative stress. 
• Reduction in incidents of selfharm and suicide and the related staffing resource and cumulative stress. 
• Reduction in external hospital escorts where prisoners state they have swallowed something and the associated staffing requirement and risk of escape. 
• Reduction in the need to respond to incidents and the associated staffing. 
• Managing fewer incidents allows managers to spend more time in their function delivering outcomes. 
• Reduction in the disruption to the delivery of an effective regime. 
• Reduction in stress levels for all staff which should help with wellbeing / resilience and improve attendance and retention. 

HMPPS have submitted a bid for specific money to enable more body scanners (currently there are only two), to be put into our Establishments and the PGA fully support this bid. National Officers have been pursuing this issue at every opportunity and have lobbied the new Secretary of State (David Gauke), the Prison Minister (Rory Stewart) HMPPS and the media. We sincerely hope the holders of the purse strings commit to deal with the causes rather than the symptoms of a prison service in crisis. 

Finances are very limited but there may be opportunities at local level to secure funding or collaborate with partners to fund such technology. If you would like more information or have any questions about this article then please contact National Officer Mitch Albutt. 

Pick of the Week 22

At last, a spirited response, without an unprincipled gloss. A split in Napo. Reminds me of a Leonard Cohen line, 'There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in'.

It's an odd state of affairs when an AGM resolution needs to be restored from Napo's recycle bin. It should not be so easy in the first instance for officers and officials to overturn a member-led resolution which was passed in opposition to what the leadership wanted. At the very least abandoning the AGM resolution should not have been presented as a fait accompli, but as a proposal for consultation, on the assumption that 'member-led' is not a meaningless slogan. Now the two dissenters have to seek to reverse a perverse decision that was imposed.

The decision to acquiesce and appease the employers is the wrong one. It is worth fighting for the national codes of service. The 2014 staff transfer agreement shows that the employers cannot be trusted so the appeasers are deluding themselves if they believe they can negotiate, again, from weakness. Let Napo members at least have an opportunity to reject the race to the bottom mentality of the employers. It is time to fight back.

******
They should now publish all the figures. This could hardly be called whistle blowing as the authors are either withholding information because they agree with Lawrence (don't trust the membership) or they do not have the full facts and are bluffing. Pearson saw a win win situation here in his bid to replace Lawrence by pretending to support Berry in a principled crusade against the end of national negotiations in apparent defense of collective bargaining, knowing full well this will fail, but unlike Berry he will gain credit from this for appearing to fight to both support trade union principles and appearing to support the left wing of Napo. It's a smart move well played. Someone explain this to Chas that he is being played.

******
Fighting talk from two principled people but this is very much a case of trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. Local collective bargaining is the way to go now as no one will get the NPS and the CRCs back to the table. Napo simply hasn't got the membership density to make these kinds of demands. The national negotiating machinery no longer exists. Unison have walked away. GMB have no objection to local collective bargaining. Employers have not said they want to end collective bargaining, they just want to do it locally.

What is feared are regional pay deals where probation staff in London and the South East, where they struggle to recruit and retain staff due to the cost of living, are likely to be paid more and enjoy increased benefits under local collective bargaining agreements whereas those in other regions, where there is a surplus of staff and the cost of living is lower, may well not get increases and increased benefits.

No Napo member working in the CRC in London and the South East in their right mind should support a campaign to support bringing back national collective bargaining. With the demise of national collective bargaining staff in areas where there is a high cost of living and whose pay has been frozen can now look forward to increased pay and improved benefits.

Chas Berry split the vote enabling the ineffective chairs to be re-elected and now he is splitting Napo over a campaign he and his supporters cannot win and will achieve nothing other than to force Napo into talks with PCS in whose offices they are currently residing, with a view to being assimilated. The cash from the sale of Chivalry Road is no doubt earmarked for Ian and Co redundancy payments.

******
The AGM motion was a short sighted own goal as Chas & Alex knew it would be at that time. The NNC was a lost cause but thought they could get Napo members stirred up over a perceived loss of collective bargaining, although even this was misleading. It is as well to read what Napos negotiating committee had to say in their paper presented to those attending the AGM. It is readily apparent they had given up on the NNC as a lost cause months before the AGM. They assumed Chas would wake up and smell the coffee but as usual he refused to accept the reality of what was actually happening and spoke passionately about fighting for something that he knew could not be achieved. Unfortunately he has been valiantly fighting for lost causes for some time and Napo is just the latest vehicle. Unfortunately Napo members only got to vote on a pointless motion that was effectively a non runner - the punters were told it was a safe bet. They were not told that the NNC had already ceased to function (they didn't even book a room to meet in!!) and its days as a viable negotiating forum had ended and no one doubted it would soon no longer exist.

******
It was the weakest opposition to any motion I ever seen. Barely audible, incoherent, garbled. A major fail by the elected top table to deal with what has become a major problem ultimately now threatening Napos very existence.

******
So the RARs are a total fudge, MoJ/NPS & CRC providers are all doing different things, courts haven't a clue what various providers are providing and there are hundreds of people in England & Wales still subject to court orders who have completed their RARs but never been seen for months. Equally there are hundreds who have been given court orders of 12 months or more who have completed their RARs & then been discharged from their order "for good progress" after 2,3,4,5 months. And presumably no-one knows the true picture, hence the 'paper'.

So MoJ say protecting the public is their number one priority, hence trashing historical "wet liberal" probation and replacing it with farcical pocket-stuffing probation, aka TR. No! Their only concern is protecting the Providers from exposure to "business risk", i.e. loss of money by CRCs and loss of any remaining credibility by MoJ/Noms. Total Shambles.

******
The RAR guidance is flawed because the RAR legislation is flawed. There is no legal basis for the muddled conclusion. Another example that useless twats run the Probation Service.

******
I think the paper from the MoJ means nothing. Private probation companies will operate whatever way they wish, just as they are doing with staff redundancies, excessive caseloads, training or the services they provide for service users. To my mind they hold all the cards. The government are over a barrel. Privateers have already made a big noise about being misled prior to signing contracts, which suggests to me that if the contracts were taken from them legal challenge would be mounted to force the government to pay for the whole life of the contracts. If the private companies walk away, then it would take legal challenge by the government to impose any financial penalty. Either way, it would prove very damaging for the government. Private companies know exactly the grip they hold on government, and like everything else they'll exploit it to the max.

******
As a recently retired court officer with many years prosecuting breaches under my now expanding belt, to the last I could not work out the basis for the current requirement regarding reporting "outside" the designated number of RAR days as "supervision" in its own right specifically ceased to exist. I did spend a considerable amount of time trying to
A) work out with managers/casemanagers how to explain to courts the difference between just keeping an appointment and having a one to one RAR session (never did bottom out that one ) and B) wondering on what proper legal basis a breach of an order could be pursued once that designated RAR days had been discharged. 

As far as I was ever aware a Judge or Magistrate passing a sentence treated RAR days as essentially the same as unpaid work, once the requirement is done, in effect that's it. Surely this must have been the initial intention from the outset otherwise precluding "supervision" as a ongoing requirement would be totally pointless. I do appreciate that to attend initial inductions and like appointments are part of any community order or SSO, but to continue insisting on attendance up to the end seems bizarre and contrary to commonsense. Both those sentencing and those sentenced should be clear as to exactly what they are signing up for. MoJ as ever produce darkness where there should light.

******
Offender Rehabilitation Act 3 (1) "In this Part “rehabilitation activity requirement”, in relation to a relevant order, means a requirement that, during the relevant period, the offender must comply with any instructions given by the responsible officer to attend appointments or participate in activities or both."

This means we ignore both PI 58/2014 and the new guidance above which are incorrect. Appointments and activities are both included in the RAR. When the RAR ends so does contact with the offender. Any appointments offered after the RAR end are voluntary and not enforceable. I've seen many breaches deemed illegal on this basis.

******
ORA is badly worded but it does appear to distinguish between "appointments" and "activities" under a RAR. Whereas the number of days are prescribed under a RAR, appointments are unlimited. The confusion arises when RAR is being completed by using one to one "appointments" with officers (rather than "instructions" to attend all these marvellous new innovative activities alluded to). I suspect this is happening quite a lot. Then, from this interpretation, once the RAR is completed, Orders are probably lying around stagnant with nothing happening until expiry date (which is fixed in court). 

The MoJ appears to be correct in their albeit unclear communication style. Once RAR activity days are completed, if there is a gap of time between completion of RAR and expiry of Order, (two distinct situations), the Order should either be taken back to court on grounds of good progress, or appointments be issued until the end of Order to monitor risk etc. In my view difficulties have arisen because privately owned companies inevitably view court orders as belonging to them to play with as they please. The Orders don't belong to them, they belong to the court. They are implemented and enforced on behalf of the court. This is the shocking, foreseeable consequence of privatising justice. Fat cats seeing themselves as above the law, literally.

******
It all seems so obvious to the rest of us. My immediate thoughts went to the E3 shite, that has made the main driver of sentencing - speed - striving originally for 90% of reports being done on the day - subsequently reduced to 70%...from my own experience this results in stand alone SSO's, UPW or a Curfew - nobody works with the individual to overcome barriers to compliance - they are just numbers and if they fail, the service is seen to fail so either - no reports are made or they are put before a breach court to be dealt with inappropriately as described above. Compliance starts with the first contact with a service - if it is make shift and shoddy - we shouldn't be shocked when that is how the order/sentence is treated.

******
ORA & supervision for everyone has simply collapsed the CJS & any possibility of effective/meaningful rehabilitative intervention. Risk averse incompetents running Trusts had ensured the breach system was disappearing up its own fundament even before the privatisation catastrophe brought the roof down.

******
Actually what collapsed the CJS & any possibility of effective/meaningful rehabilitation is the silly policies of building new (Titan) prisons, privatisation of probation and the ever increasing police state!

******
TR has created a ticking time bomb nationwide. I work in the NPS and the failings are appalling due to the constant disruption. It's only a matter of time before the next victim. It's soul destroying working in this atmosphere.

******
On this information alone I do not think the Probation Officer should be blamed. The focus should be on the organisation rather than the individual. Condolences to the family of the deceased. The reality is we are paid to see offenders for 30 mins or less every week, fortnight or month. Our training has been long removed from social work, the degree element slowly eroded, time for reflection and learning replaced with high caseloads, bad pay, deteriorating terms and conditions, understaffing, no resources, etc, etc.

******
Totally agree. Despite the chaos created by TR, this officer is on the ball and pro-active. A SUMMONS was issued and court date set. Being a YOI Licence this person could NOT have been immediately recalled in the same way as adults on license. If I am wrong about that please let me know. The error here is with police releasing an individual presenting as a risk. Evidence available. Why not charged and remanded? For me, that's the unanswered question. If anything, the only person doing anything of any value here was the case manager.

******
In the Hanson and White, Anthony Rice and Sonnex cases, the Probation Inspectorate carried out independent reviews. In this case you have a private company investigating itself which undermines natural justice. This present case has wide ramifications that involves the police, prisons, mental health and probation; there are inter-agency protocols that should be impartially assessed. This tragedy was preventable and until there is an independent inquiry and clear recommendations for future practice, the risks of further tragic outcomes will remain.

******
The newly appointed PSOs in my NPS office are being allocated the most inappropriate cases mainly because there's no one else to take them. They've had little or no training and some of them are so stressed with the worry they are going home and crying! We are trying to support them but no time really.

******
Same in my office sadly. Managers also at risk as they have to decide to give cases to PSO's on competence. Supposedly. However, they are then being told they MUST give PSO staff some cases to ease the pressure on PO's, or else. The PSO's have had little training at all and they are supervising medium risk cases that have just only reduced to medium. Many were high risk only a short time ago. Whilst they are capable individuals generally and will make good PSO's, it does concern me if something goes wrong. We rarely have time or the inclination to support them. And we will not train them either to be fair. SFO's are now far from the norm. Admin all got bumped up to act up PSO's as well which left us with temps who had no idea what they were doing as no-one left to train them. Breaches and recalls falling down and collapsing as a consequence. I do know of one death that may have been avoided were the Courts to jail the SU on the second breach. A breach has become pointless and meaningless to the Courts and SU's also. It's the whole CJS that needs a shake really. Communication between agencies is poor as all services in a similar sorry state.This sad story, not the first and it will not be the last.

******
Mappa process also gone pear shaped. Just an SPO and a DI arguing over stuff then setting all actions for POs. No more shared agency views. No more supporting decision making. Plus hardly any level 2 or 3 these days. Most normal agency management after a number crunching paper exercise. Lost all meaning and respect.

******
Correction.....Substitute PO with PSO. A PO was not providing supervision with Working Links. The PSO was clerical and not trained to do the job, neither was the Manager who was also not a trained PSO or PO. Working Links have now removed 240 jobs and regrading staff removing the job of Probation Support officer to reduce pay and experience required to undertake the role. As of last week it was said all regrading has to take place by the 31st March 2017. So have lessons be learned?

******
I've been knocking around since the days of the SER. When I first came across these, I was impressed, and also bemused. These long, detailed documents were of terrific value to probation staff who went on to supervise the client, but rarely read by the magistrates, who would go straight to the last paragraph. So the rationale for producing something shorter and less detailed prior to sentencing makes sense IF...IF the same time and attention is given to analysis and research after sentence, a whole working day was the time allowance as I recall. The system whereby this was required by the court prior to sentencing safeguarded the allocation of the necessary resources and time.

******
"To avoid adjournment, a PSR should ideally be done on the same day." Firstly, amazing how what is ideal changes, irrespective of evidence, secondly, when it comes to courts losing time, the judiciary have a monopoly. This same day ideal is on a par with that other fallacy of £46-pounds-in-your-pocket. The Sentencing Council is stuffed with sinecurist's and other time servers, who follow the ideology of the day rather than what constitutes good practice. If the PSR hadn't been so degraded over the years, we may, for example, have fewer mentally-ill languishing and deteriorating in overcrowded prison.

******
We lost this fight years ago. The fallacy that you need a full OASys to do a full report came up against the last, now almost 7, years of austerity. First you break the link between a full assessment and a PSR. So "Simple cases" can be done on the day. Then you decide that you can get partly trained PSO's (Sorry all you PSO's out there but there IS a difference between a PO and a PSO and that difference is AUTONOMY and the trust of the Organisation) to do those "simple PSR's". Then you gradually erode what is not a "SIMPLE" PSR shoehorning more and more complex cases into that category. Then you realise that the quality is dropping but rather than address this decide that it is all about SPEED of delivery. Therefore you start setting "Stretch" on the day targets. Then you jump that target from 50% to 75% to 90% to "The expectation is that ALL will be delivered on the day". Then you recognise that the whole process adds nothing to sentencing because the reports are done on a conveyor belt.

This will only be reversed now when a mistake is made of such magnitude that somebody who is either 1 Important (Monckton for example) 2 Media catnip (So someone young and blonde and pretty, that usually does it) Is killed by some psychopath in court for a drink drive offence that a cursory examination of the records would have showed that there were bigger problems. Even then if it can be pinned on the poor sap who wrote the report then it will be business as usual. We are fucked, get used to it.

******
I am a court probation officer. For those of my colleagues who do not work in the court setting, just to advise it is horrendous and a disaster waiting to happen. Complex mental health and DV reports done in the space of 20 minutes if you are lucky! This is a shameful indictment of government directives and a lack of backbone by the judiciary to accept this watered down service not to mention potentially dangerous state of affairs that has been created. Anyone remember reflective practice? What refuse bin has that been consigned to? Henry Ford would be proud of the mass produced, conveyor built system of dealing with peoples lives that currently exists in the courts. I am truly ashamed to be a part of this despicable system. I feel contaminated like I have sold myself for 30 pieces of silver which I know I have done. I want out but I have children to feed and a mortgage to pay.

******
Once not that long ago the end to end offender management idea placed value on the PO being involved with the SU right from the start of entry of SU into CJS and though the order to the exit of the SU. Sometimes the PO would follow the SU through the process 2 or 3 times before the SU eventually found his/her feet in a non offending lifestyle. As I perceived it at the time, this approach did involve the SU in the promise he was making to the court to avoid offending. Also the SU would be more closely involved in deciding how he would do that. 

From the PO's point of view there was a real commitment to supporting the SU to succeed. The conversations between the SU and the PO in supervision were real because they had entered into a contract together at the court stage. The mags/judges would be more inclined to follow proposals as they were able to see that contract in front of their eyes in court. They perceived this was genuine and it made them trust us more. They were more patient with us and with the SU when there was re-offending or a breach. They understood better that for someone to stop offending is a process requiring a huge effort and focus on the part of the SU as well as on the part of those who try to support the SU to make those changes. 

I used to encourage all involved at PSR stage to see it as a creation of a contract between SU, supervising PO and court, one where all parties are accountable. And for a brief season it worked for me and for my SUs. I believe that as things are now the SU would struggle to see the point of their all too brief PSR assessments, the PSR authors become less able to make good proposals as many now have no experience of supervising a SU through an order and the supervising staff as mentioned by others here struggle to establish a useful starting point in their supervision in terms of working relationship. The mags and judges must feel every day that the current system is too full of holes, as many SU appear in their courts at an ever faster pace with no real explanation of the work that has been done with them so far.

******
Oral reports, CAS documents and RSRs not worth the paper they are written on. Yet another myth of TR ignored by unions. NPS, though no fault of their own, are not assessing risk and are not providing risk management plan's, CRCs shot in front, back, head, toe and sides.

******
By virtue of the short form PSRs, and no other arrangement for full assessment and analysis, CRC not given the information they need, and by virtue of absolute crap contracting and commissioning, not delivering what the shoddy court reports promise. Downward spiral, and its leading to ire between previous colleagues/comrades across the CRC-NPS divide, when we should be united in laying the blame squarely at the door of the Minister, and his successor(s).

******
That is the nub of it: the PSRs are written in haste, which might be excusable if the follow up supervision and interventions were invested in and effectively delivered. Internet sex offenders now not to go on to group programme. In my area there is a waiting list for the programme of over a year, at which point the motivation and engagement is waning. Haven't had time to check out the new one-to-one intervention for the internet (specifically Thornton low risk) men, but I get a whole day's training on that shortly, so that's all sorted (not). Cheapskate justice, and lamentable cuts, dictated by a department that doesn't know its private parts from its arm joints.

******
Magistrates have no sway over what happens at higher policy level as regards probation reports. MA unable and National Bench Chairman's Forum too busy with their own aggrandisement (IMHO) to make much fuss about this - though magistrates would probably be the last to know if they did. It may be odd to say it, but magistrates now have relative less input into sentencing so probably find longer probation reports less valuable. Sentencing guidelines make the direction of travel fairly obvious. On the community order/custody cusp there will be valuable input from probation and defence. Otherwise, magistrates have little idea what RAR entails and no say over what it should entail, so why be particularly interested in the characteristics of the defendant that it may address? The questions for which answers are needed have become quite straightforward:
Will RAR be useful: yes/no
What activity (eg drugs) will help?
Can the defendant do unpaid work or curfew? 

It is surprising how often there is no recommended punitive element that there must be in a sentence. Sentencers are often left scrabbling around for something to put in to make the sentence even vaguely match the seriousness of the offence. I should say I think this is a structural failure, not of the excellent POs and PSOs found in court.

******
I wholeheartedly would be behind the abolition of NOMS. This agency is a complete waste of tax payers money and creates nothing but bureaucracy for us on the front line trying to actually do our job. Just the thought of no more ignored emails and only them contacting me when it suits them must be a good thing. Go back to parole clerks in prisons - they know each case inside out and a firm point of contact with consistency. Cheaper, more efficient without the added NOMS b****cks bureaucracy. Shame its taken so long for even a sniff of getting rid of this farcical organisation.

******
Where does this leave probation? NOMS was a mess, we know that, but nobody seems to know who will run/lead Probation or whether it will be Probation friendly. We don't want to be left as a department of the HM Prison Service and poor relation of the Civil Service. Local councils and Police and Crime Commissioners may stake their claim on probation in due course but are not the answer either. NPS directors are complicit in all of this which means we will get no answers until the damage is already done.

******
"However you organise accountability at the centre, public safety outcomes across probation, prison and courts are intrinsically linked." Not really, no, Mr Lawrence. They're linked to each other no more than they're linked to the CPS and defence solicitors, or to housing departments, social services and the Parole Board. As with all of these agencies/organisations, the Probation Service has worked best when left alone as a separate agency/arm of the Criminal Justice System and away from the meddling of ministers, prison governors and CEO's.

******
Unlike those who seem to dream of a brave new world dawning ("We welcome the Secretary of State stepping up and looking to break the cycle of failure and crisis") I sense Jim is pointing out that the more likely scenario is nothing will change except the name. It will be the same topline of prison bullies, with maybe one or two casualties of early retirement & a generous £thank-you-bonus, the same Tory buffoons and the same blinkered agenda that leaves CRC staff in crisis & NPS staff in full harness.

MoJ Getting Rattled

It would appear from this paper that the MoJ is beginning to get rattled by recent SFO revelations and the risk that the public and press might begin to learn a bit more regarding the 'smoke and mirrors' reality of RAR days and 'supervision'. TR really has been an unmitigated disaster and someone needs to be held to account.

REHABILITATION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENT (RAR)
Legal Position & Practice Implications
(Interim)

1. Introduction

The introduction (ORA) of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) had provided a great deal of sentencing flexibility as well as significant challenges in implementing a measure whose precise focus (in terms of the amount of days, the nature and intensity of interventions) was determined post-sentence. It has gained progressive traction with sentencers but continues to experience difficulties in relation to its practical application, particularly with respect to distinguishing between the requirement (RAR) and the court order, which then leads to a number of implications including its management on nDelius and accountability for the court order following the completion of the assigned activity days. This note provides legal clarity and confirms the policy position in relation to the NPS.

2. The Legal Framework

Section 15 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 (ORA 2014) amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) to create a new Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR), for Community Orders and Suspended Sentence Orders. The RAR replaces existing activity and supervision requirements which are repealed.

From December 2013, when imposing a Community Order, the court has been required to include at least one requirement that serves as a punishment (or alternatively a fine). There is no equivalent statutory requirement in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 or the ORA 2014 that requires a rehabilitative element as part of every Community Order. There is therefore no duty on courts to include a RAR as part of every Community Order: the decision to include a RAR within a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order is at the discretion of the court.

A RAR lasts the whole length of a Community Order and until the end of the suspension period for a Suspended Sentence Order. The court will set an end date for the Community Order and since the RAR does not require the court to indicate when the RAR activities will end, the end date of the Community Order will be the date by which the activities must be completed. In respect of a Suspended Sentence Order, the activities must be completed by the end of the suspension period.

PI 58/2014 provides the operational framework for dealing with the approach to assessment, imposition and management of the RAR. All Providers are required to comply with the PI. The NPS Policy and Contract Management are currently reviewing the conflicting understanding of the provision amongst some Providers and will reinforce the framework in the PI with them in due course.

3. Practice Implications

The confusion has arisen through the interpretation of the legal provisions, particularly the conflation of activity days with the length of the order. What this means in practice is that the completion of the activity days brings to a conclusion the constituent element (RAR) of the court order. As most of the activity days are likely to be short in length, it would lead to their quick completion, so if the order was for a period of 12 months and the RAR days (say 40) are completed in 3 months, it results in the RAR finishing with the order still having 9 months to run (so should not be shutdown on nDelius). The offender will remain liable to comply with the order during the outstanding 9 months.

One of the practice challenges is to determine the precise level of purposeful activity for the offender beyond the RAR days. In most cases this is likely to be difficult. However, the Provider remains vulnerable to the business risks (including SFOs and accountability to court if the offender re-offends and it transpires there has been no contact with him/her for a significant period of time) arising from the offender’s continued obligations to the court order until such time as the status of the order is resolved. Two issues follow from this:

1. Providers have to define (based on case complexity and risk) the nature of purposeful activity (which may in some cases involve just reporting periodically) and then instruct the relevant offenders to continue to attend. This would inevitably involve a wide range of considerations including impact on resources. This is for Providers to determine in each case. The NPS cases (those not suitable for 2 below) may be suitable for management in Supervision /Report Centres Centres (or other such designated structured supervision arrangements within each division)

2. Resolve the status of the court order through revocation (good progress, reflecting the overall progress in delivering the sentence plan objectives including impact on reducing risk levels. It would be based on OASys assessments/reviews/decision making evidenced and recorded in nDelius). This would once again involve a number of issues including credibility with sentencers and resource implications both for HMCTS and NPS (enforcement work).

4. Agreed NPS Position:

1. The approach set out in the paper should be adopted in relation to the NPS offender management work with immediate effect

2. We are currently expecting the release of findings of a National Review of RARs. This paper will be amended to reflect any learning from that

3. In relation to the CRC policy and practice, Contract Management are continuing their work to agree a position with CRCs, which would include taking a view on whether or not the CRCs would necessarily take the order back to court for revocation (good progress). Given this, the paper should not be discussed at interface meetings at this stage

4. All NPS divisions should begin to review the possible resource implications arising from the potentially significant increase in the volume of enforcement work to support any change in practice regarding revocations.

--oo00oo--

This from a current job advert. I wonder if there's anyone getting overtime today?

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has embarked on an ambitious, high-profile programme of reform and we have a number of fantastic opportunities in our External Communications team for talented, hard-working communications professionals.

Our department is never far from the headlines and you will be joining a busy and friendly team to take responsibility for shaping stories and influencing them in print, broadcast and online news outlets.

This includes reforming prisons, probation and youth justice to improve public safety and reduce re-offending, and undertaking the biggest programme of courts reform anywhere in the world to renew public confidence in the justice system and better protect the vulnerable.

We need confident and dynamic individuals in roles across the office who will thrive on being at the forefront of the Justice Secretary’s key priorities, whether that’s briefing media to create the headlines or fire-fighting the occasional crisis story.

You would also contribute to our out-of-hours media service, for which overtime is paid.
It’s an exciting time to be part of the Ministry of Justice. If you have the skills to excel in a busy, fast-paced environment, this is the role for you.

Guest Blog 37

Bleak Futures

I am prompted to write this by Jim’s latest blog. I am a PO in the NPS side and if the past few years haven't been bad enough I dread the future! Not just for my job security and employment but for the effect it is likely to have on me, my colleagues and the client group we work with. My day to day experience is horrendous and seemingly the same for all the staff who work in my office ( around 60). 

We try to put on a brave face and shrug off the incompetence of those who are dictating our practice without providing us with the tools to do so. But it's just a falsehood and once strong individuals are regularly reduced to meltdown and tears. Most of us keep going by living for the weekends and leave. Some colleagues have succumbed to stress and long term sick leave. A good majority are seeking a way out; it seems the only ones who want a job in Probation are the trainees.

We are fortunate that our Team Managers leave us alone for the time being but this in itself adds to the stress for some. All staff are struggling and trying to support each other as all our previous support networks have gone. There is no effective TU consultation or representation any more and all previous management/staff consultative groups have gone as a result of TR.

My excessive workload as identified in a flawed WMT which does not measure a lot of what I have to do means that I spend most of my time firefighting. I struggle to get the time to undertake the effective casework which all the research confirms does reduce re-offending and no one really cares anymore. I do still focus my efforts on this part of my job and try to ignore that computer stuff and the constant emails telling me what I should do. But I know this will catch up with me eventually and Oasys, CAS, and other endless form filling will become top priority again.

I am having to work with organisations who don't seem to have a clue and I haven't the patience to enlighten them. However for the sake of my clients I have to continue to try and get them the support and services they need to bring about changes to their lives.

From what I see around me all the hard work gone into improving the quality of our work and consistency has fallen by the wayside. I see daily examples of the effects of this on our client group, an increase in unfair recalls and breaches at one end of the scale to complete absence of any work undertaken on cases. My colleague was recently allocated a case which had spent 3 post sentence months bouncing back and forth between CRCs and NPS without any contact with the client. This was a very serious domestic violence case and it transpired that the client had been living with a women and her 2 children throughout this time. I'm sure many other cases like this are coming to light.

Court reports are another casualty in our area we are so overworked that we are getting 3 days to turn around reports on serious matters without doing public protection check. This will only get worse for us shortly as many of the reports have been outsourced due to lack of resources but this is about to stop. We have already been warned that savings aka cuts need to be made. As a past staff rep I know that there is nothing left to cut except staff! I also know that we will struggle to save time on our workload through changes in practice because the client group we are working with need a lot of attention to be managed safely. 

This change in the intensity of my workload and the lack of time to consider my practice is another factor which makes me dread the future in the NPS. It has the potential to have a significant effect on my health. Too often I have to wing it and hope for the best but I am constantly aware that it could only be a matter of time before I could be facing disciplinary action for some piece of paperwork I haven't completed. I know a lot of my colleagues feel the same and those that don't take the easy punitive option to cover their backs. Again the impact of this on our client group is unfair and inconsistent treatment. It really is the luck of the draw now and clients are increasingly dis-engaging with Probation.

How on earth we are going to cope with the ORA cases fastly filtering through I don't know. We are struggling what to do with them when they breach time and again because they don't want 12 months supervision after a 2 week sentence. It seems like it's going to be a never ending cycle of court appearances and Breach paperwork for those that are hardest to work with .The financial cost of this must be enormous.

Our admin support staff have been indispensable and the thought of them being housed away from us is another future dread. They have patiently sat alongside us helping to deal with the unworkable IT systems we have been landed with. Colleagues are constantly having to redo forms that are lost and reports that disappear. Recently my close colleague reached breaking point with the computer and had to leave the office to regain her composure. When she complained to her manger, his unsupportive response prompted her to redo it . Needless to say she couldn't!

I apologise if this all seems rambling and too negative, I'm generally a positive person and willing to roll with the punches. But this time all I can see is a very beak future! I hope Jim’s blog continues because I know for some of us who feel abandoned by our managers and our unions it provides support.

ORA Special

The Offender Rehabilitation Act comes into force tomorrow and the predominantly clueless 'caterers and cleaners' officially take over the running of most of the former world class Probation Service. 

Disgracefully, it would seem 'probation' as a household name is already being 'airbrushed' out of existence. Within the Act and guidance notes, the term is being studiously avoided with talk instead of 'responsible officer' and the like. Perhaps even more significantly there was absolutely no mention of probation in yesterday's Guardian article by Zoe Williams on the excellent work being undertaken at HMP New Hall. It's not as if she doesn't know her stuff either, seeing as she's a trustee of the Butler Trust:-

"Everybody knows that prisons are not as simple as sending people away and having them slip back seamlessly into society afterwards as if nothing has happened. Women’s prisons are particularly complicated, and this week the justice minister, Simon Hughes, acknowledged the problem when he announced the rollout of a scheme to keep women from ending up behind bars. The female prison population has shot up since 1995, more than doubling by 2010; there are now around 3,800 women inmates. Yet, in that group, Hughes said, “There are so many women who ought not to be in prison. About half ought not to be there at all.”

But they are, and many who serve one sentence will go on to serve another. As everyone agrees, the prevention of reoffending is the key aim of the penal system. From that starting point, everything else will flow: all successful rehabilitation, all prevention of crime and all avoidance of creating more victims will come from the prison estate dealing imaginatively with what happens after inmates are discharged. The big untold story in all of this is how much is down to individuals: prison officers, psychologists and people from the third sector working inside and outside the prison walls. These people are often working way beyond their job descriptions, not to targets or directives, not to improve a measured outcome, but because that’s how they are."

It's widely accepted that there's been hardly any preparation for this brave new world and the most commonly heard refrain is 'we haven't got a clue'. Before I selectively quote from a 53 page NPS ORA briefing document, here's some reader reflections:-  

"The sentencers will be required to impose a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement based on a number of days. The CRC will, post-sentence, decide what activity is to be undertaken. The contentious part for me is that the CRC can, if it deems it appropriate, 'complete' an RAR WITHOUT USING ALL OF THE DAYS. So the sentence is, in fact, determined by the CRC OM, not by the Court. Also, a 'day' is any single event and could be 10 minutes or three hours. It's all up to the CRC. The only checks and balances are the contract management process and we know about the MOJ's record on that. The potential for abuse and tokenism is massive. I fear for the credibility of community sentences, I really do."

"35 hours a week 'job search' (which is compulsory anyway if on JSA), will become part of the rehabilitation activity. All the privateers have to do is register the client with their employment team. Job done!"

"We had a 1.30 hour briefing on RAR and Through the Gate on Tues am. It sounds as though its going to be chaotic. We got a communication from NAPO chair today saying that one of the successful bidders for CRC had thought we were already working with the Through The Gate lot and was shocked to realise that we weren't - their bid had not taken into account ADDITIONAL work."

Overview of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 and Through the Gate

The Offender Rehabilitation Bill received Royal Assent on 13 March 2014. Two sections of the resulting Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) came into force on 1 June 2014 (creation of the new enforcement officer role for breaches of court orders, and a requirement that contracts for probation services set out provision for female offenders). The remaining sections of the ORA will come into force on 1 February 2015. The ORA makes changes to three main areas of the sentencing framework:

1) The expansion of licence to offenders released from short custodial sentences of less than 12 months.

2) Creation of a new Post-Sentence Supervision (PSS) period that follows licence for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 2 years.

3) Changes to Community Order and Suspended Sentence Order requirements, particularly the introduction of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR).

Most of the new provisions of the ORA (with the key exception of changes to the drug testing requirement) will only apply to offenders who have committed an offence on or after 1 February 2015. Eligible caseloads will therefore take some time to build up.

The ORA will have several operational implications for the NPS with process changes and developments in practice required to embed the new provisions. The operational impact on court staff, report writers, staff involved in supervising offenders sentenced to community penalties and custodial sentences including the enforcement of these sentences, has been outlined in this Guidance.

Through the Gate (TTG) is the resettlement service that CRCs will provide for all those received into custody. TTG services will commence fully on 1 May but in some establishments services may be mobilised earlier. TTG begins with the Basic Custody Screening Tool (BCST):

BCST Part 1 is a needs assessment and will be completed by prison staff within 72 hours of reception. Questions in the BCST link to the 7 resettlement pathways, which are:

Accommodation
Education, employment and training
Health
Drugs and alcohol
Finance, debt and benefit
Children and Families
Attitudes, thinking and behaviour

BCST Part 2 is the resettlement plan and will be completed by CRC staff for all prisoners (including NPS) within 5 days of receiving BCST Part 1. The CRC will then know what resettlement needs a prisoner has, and decide how best to meet that need. There are a suite of resettlement services that the CRC will be contractually obliged to deliver to all offenders, and will be paid for this on a fee for service basis. These are:

Accommodation & employment brokerage
Finance and debt advice
Support for sex workers
Support for victims of domestic violence 

The CRC must also provide pre-release activity no sooner than 12 weeks before release. In addition to this, the CRC will provide additional rehabilitative services that they believe will reduce reoffending, and so gain payment on a Payment by Results (PbR) basis. These services will be available to the NPS on an ‘elective’ basis where it is an appropriate and cost effective response to tackling specific offender needs.

Pre Sentence Report Writers

The approach to report writing continues to be informed by the existing framework of assessment involving reference to Sentencing Guidelines, offence seriousness, risk of conviction/reoffending, EOASys Risk of Serious Harm (RoSH) screening and full analysis when required, together with RSR, OGRS, SARA and other specialist assessment tools, offender's criminogenic need and responsivity issues.

The ORA makes no direct change to this existing framework for report writing. The report writer will continue to inform the Court of their comprehensive assessment and make a proposal as to what particular risk factors and offending related needs may require addressing but not specifically ‘how’ this should be done. There are however a number of changes, either made by the ORA or the wider Transforming Rehabilitation programme, that report writers will need to take into account.

The first is the fact that the rehabilitative services offered by CRCs – either to offenders they are supervising or, in some cases, to NPS-retained offenders – are likely to change in the coming months as new providers put in place what was in their bids. Clearly, assessments and recommendations to the Court regarding public protection and rehabilitation can be better informed by an awareness of what interventions are available to offenders both in custody and the community. The range and availability of local interventions on offer will be regularly communicated by local CRCs to NPS report writers and sentencers. The nature of this communication will vary depending upon the CRC.

The second is the creation of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) by the ORA, which replaces the existing Supervision and Specified Activity Requirements for offences committed on or after 1 February 2015. Under the RAR, the Court does not specify the activity or activities the offender must participate in. Instead, this is left to the discretion of the Responsible Officer (RO). The RAR therefore allows the RO the freedom to make their own professional judgement about the most appropriate means to address the risk factors outlined in the PSR and as such make decisions about the form that supervision will take. However, where a Court is considering imposing a RAR, report writers will still need to give the Court an indication of the type of services CRCs are likely to offer in that case. Report writers should assume these services are unchanged on 1 February unless the CRC has communicated a change to the interventions they offer.

Report writers may also need to consider likely allocation decisions as this may have an impact upon their completion of EOASys, the content of their report and their Court proposal, for example if it is a case deemed to be of high public interest.

Finally, in light of the new ORA requirement for offenders serving community orders or suspended sentence orders to seek permission before changing place of residence, it is of increased importance that Court staff and report authors gather sufficient information regarding the suitability of the offender's address. Relevant information should be recorded. There is no specific expectation at the point of sentence that NPS court officers will need to confirm suitability of address for the purpose of the PSS resident requirement where offenders are released direct from court.

Proposals

For offences committed before 1 February 2015 the options available for report proposals are as outlined in the relevant legislation, in particular CJA 2003 and LASPO 2012.

For offences committed on or after 1 February 2015 Supervision Requirements and all Specified Activity Requirements (SARs) will no longer be available. The ORA introduces the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR). Other requirements DRR, ATR, Mental Heath Treatment, UPW, Curfew/Electronic Monitoring, ACO, Exclusion, Residence, Prohibited Foreign Travel, Prohibited Activity Requirement) are still available and should be proposed where appropriate as before.

A RAR allows for the Responsible Officer (RO) to instruct the offender to attend activities, appointments, or both. The Court sets the maximum number of days of activities that the RAR can involve. The number of days stated is the maximum that the offender can be required to undertake but the allocated RO can decide to use fewer days at their discretion. By contrast, there is no limit set by the court on appointments, which can carry on for the duration of the RAR (which last for the length of the overall order).

It is for the court to first decide whether a Community Order (CO) or Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) with a RAR is an appropriate sentencing disposal and then to set the length of the sentence and the maximum number of activity days. Please note that the RAR does not allow for a minimum number of days only a maximum. The allocated RO is then responsible for deciding the content of the activity days, how they will be delivered, how frequently the offender attends and to whom. In some instances the content of the RAR activity may be decided pre sentence where there are bespoke interventions in place. So the Court may be aware of the proposed content, however the Court cannot set what specific rehabilitation activities should be delivered under the RAR.

Where a DRR, ATR, Mental Heath Treatment Requirement or an Accredited Programme is being proposed good practice suggests a RAR should also be proposed if there are additional needs. However, the requirements recommended should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. ROs can instruct offenders to report as needed under the auspices of the CO/SSO if there is no RAR in place, by virtue of sections 198 and 2220 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which require the RO to make any arrangements necessary for the requirements of the order, and which place a duty on the offender to keep in touch with the RO in accordance with any instructions given).

ROs can utilise the RAR activity days to require offenders to attend Accredited Programmes. However, if at the pre sentence report stage it is assessed that a particular Accredited Programme (known to be on offer) would be a suitable intervention, it would be regarded as good practice for the report writer to inform the Court. This therefore enables the Court to impose a named Accredited Programme requirement as part of the CO or SSO. 

Community Supervision

Rehabilitation Activity Requirement

Section 15 of the ORA introduces the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) for COs and SSOs. The RAR replaces the Supervision Requirement and all Specified Activity Requirements (SARs) in cases where the offence was committed on or after the 1 February 2015. However, the Supervision Requirement and the SAR remain for legacy cases where the offence was committed before this date.

The RAR is designed to provide maximum flexibility for probation providers to deliver rehabilitation activities during the sentence that address criminogenic needs and achieve a reduction in the likelihood of re-offending. The RO has discretion as to how use the RAR and as such decides what interventions are suitable for the offender to undertake. Activities which were formally covered by SARs can be included into the activities undertaken within a RAR.

Activity Days

A RAR can involve the RO instructing the offender to participate in activities, up to a maximum number set by the Court when sentencing. The RO can decide to use fewer days at their discretion. The Court specifies the end date of the CO and the end of the supervision period of the SSO. This is the date at which the RO stops being able to require the offender to attend activities (even if the maximum number of days has not been reached). The RAR therefore differs to unpaid work, where if the hours set by the court have not been completed within 12 months, the order automatically extends until they have been completed. The RO has the ability to complete the activity element of the RAR at any point before the end of the order.

An activity day is not defined in legislation, but it does not mean 24 hours of activity. Therefore, if an offender attends to an activity at 11.00am for 1 hour and then again at 2.00pm on the same day for 30 minutes then it counts as one day. If the offender attends on one day for an activity of 1 hour and then next day for an activity lasting 45 minutes then this counts as two activity days. The number of maximum days of activity set by the court cannot be exceeded.

Appointments and Activities

The RAR can be used for both the delivery of 1-2-1 supervision appointments and activities as required. In contrast to Specified Activity Requirements there are no set number of appointments that can be made by the Court. The RO can instruct the offender to attend appointments either with the RO or with someone else nominated by the RO. The RO still has the length of the CO or SSO supervision period to continue to supervise the offender by way of appointments if they so wish. This means that an offender can complete their activity days and still be required to keep appointments with their officer. It is therefore important that officers ensure that the content of the activities, the reporting requirements for these activities and supervision appointments are clearly recorded in the plan and understood by the offender.

The range of activities that may be included in the RAR is broad and the flexibility afforded by the requirement allows for innovative interventions to be delivered however they must be focused on rehabilitation. They can fulfil other purposes in addition to this – for example reparation or restorative justice. Whilst a RAR can include the delivery of an accredited offending behaviour programme. If the information regarding suitability is available at the pre-sentence stage it would be regarded good practice to provide this to sentencers. This will give the opportunity for the Court to specifically include a particular Accredited Programme as part of the CO / SSO.

A RAR should not be used to deliver any other requirements available under a CO / SSO – for example, drug treatment or unpaid work. This is because these requirements have particular safeguards associated with them that the RAR does not provide for. For example, the treatment requirements available under a CO / SSO require the offender’s consent, and the unpaid work requirement has safeguards with regards to the offender’s suitability.

The range and availability of local interventions on offer will be regularly communicated by local CRCs to NPS staff and sentencers. The nature of this communication will vary depending upon the CRC.

Trouble in Court

I suspect it's not just in London that TR has created chaos in courts, with yet more to come as the Offender Rehabilitation Act comes into force. Because the issues are likely to be common throughout England and Wales, practitioners and general readers might be interested in the latest communication from Greater London Napo chair Pat Waterman and in particular the section dealing with courts:-

Following a brief discussion at the monthly meeting with Senior Management on 13th January 2015 we were invited to prepare a paper outlining our concerns. In the week preceding this meeting it was brought to our attention that an individual was being asked to write directly to a judge to explain why her report had not been submitted the requisite two days in advance of the hearing date. We took the view that this was not an appropriate request and that the issue should be dealt with through the normal management channels.

Senior Management intervened and the particular issue was resolved. But it subsequently came to our attention that the possibility and/or threat of a report author being personally summonsed to court to explain themselves was prevalent in a number of Crown Courts in the London area.

Whereas we understand the need for reports to be submitted in a timely manner, and the responsibilities of an individual officer, we are of the view that such threats are unhelpful and an unnecessary cause of stress. Poor performance can be dealt with through the normal management processes but the courts need to be made aware of the pressures our members are working under. The late submission may be as a consequence of staff shortages, inadequate facilities for interviewing or administrative error. These need to be taken into account before an individual is summonsed to account for themselves in a public arena.

We subsequently discovered that there is a wide variety in practice across the courts in London and became quite concerned about this especially as we started to discover that courts were being ranked and staff being told to improve without seemingly any regard to resource issues.

To prepare this paper an email was sent to all members asking the following questions:

• Are the resources at your court sufficient for the tasks you are now being asked to do? If not then please elaborate. Take into consideration facilities such as interview space as well as staffing.

• Are there clear role boundaries between PO tasks, PSO tasks and Administrator tasks? Describe what is required of each grade of staff at your court as we have reason to think that there are disparities in practice across London Courts. In your opinion to what extent do you think that the practices being adopted are being done for reasons of expediency?

• What Training/briefing has been provided, or have you participated in, to deliver the new provision of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirements (RAR) under the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 which will provide for supervision of those serving sentences of less than 12 months. This is due to come into effect on 1st February.

Here are some of the responses:

Receptionist was removed last year so admin team now have to cover that duty, as well as own work. 

Reception shared with SOTU so court staff covers their reception tasks as well by virtue of the co-location.

One of our three Case Administrators is on long term sick leave so admin staff, including the borough senior CA, have been coming in on Saturdays to try to deal with the backlog of work.

One of our four PSO’s is on long term sick leave. An agreement was made with the local SPO that as a result of staff shortages oral reports could not be done

BASS referrals are simply not being done due to staff sickness.

In a busy court team in central London there are 2.5 PO vacancies of a complement of 4.5.

Lack of interview space at court due to increased demand for fast-delivery on the day reports prepared at court.

Lack of access to CPS papers is a real problem and continues to be so. Electronic working has meant CPS are more likely to access the info they need to give facts to the court in hearings, but they then cannot pass this on to us like they could paper copies. It must be requested using the formal procedure which can take some time.

Since RSR and CAS were brought in we have gone down from a 3 FDR maximum per day to 2 maximum per day.

Access to Delius and OASys records can still be an issue post-split. We are often asked to check people's compliance on current or recent orders, and need access to full Delius and OASys records to make sure we give an accurate picture.

As a PO I cover our dedicated domestic violence court, and at times cannot access PSRs prepared for the hearing - once an assessment and report is completed and locked by an NPS PO in OASys, it sometimes reverts to the control of the CRC. This then means NPS court staff cannot access the assessment and print off the report. A request for access takes time to process

Trying to get information from either the CRC or the CPS adds to the stress of court work especially when report writers are now working to tighter deadlines and under more pressure.

Our resources are utterly inadequate. Delius is constantly changing for the worse particularly in relation to CAT/RSR tasks.

Additional CAT/RSR tasks take a minimum of twenty five minutes and usually much longer. No workload account has been taken of this.

I am concerned about what weightings will be given to my work given the extra tasks and the problems we are experiencing.

The demands now being placed onto all the administrative staff are overwhelming.

Agency admin staff can often be absent which in turn piles more pressure on everyone.

Administrators in an OMU team are being asked to assist with overspill of work from the Court team. This in turn puts pressure on the OM teams

The Court office, where the administrators are based, is busy with people knocking on the office door for appointment queries etc which makes it difficult to concentrate

PSR requests that are now filtered through to the admin staff in the OMU, and then onto the designated PO to write, are being processed in the court without the correct information. This causes further work for those in OM teams. 

Greater clarity is required as to suitability for Oral report and what an Oral report actually is.

PSOs in court are expected to offer information/advice on the spot that leads to sentencing and then try to log this on DELIUS as an Oral report - now sometimes needing RSR and CAS too. Again this is an issue when short-staffed and one main reason why Oral Report completions may have fallen.

Role boundaries seem to be going all over the place. With regards to reports there is some confusion over what are PO/PSO/CA roles particularly in relation to the ever proliferating paperwork involved in report preparation. Practice varies between courts.

We are having a local one-hour briefing on ORA. There are two on offer in the week leading up to the 1st February. Those who cannot attend will be given a two page handout.

A one page handout has been provided about RAR

Our court team had a "briefing" given by the SPO. Staff were given a 96 page booklet to read, with no working time set aside to do so, but even in a glance at the briefing a number of errors were noted.

SPO stated that "there has been no guidance from the centre" and court lead ACOs and SPOs have been organising meetings on their own initiative to try to come up with processes and guidance for staff.

The briefing generated more questions than answers.

RAR is very unclear as to how it will work in practice. The main concern is the staffing implications and this is another area of uncertainty. The briefing and manual made no mention of RSR/CAS, but it appears that any one with a sentence of over 1 day needs to be allocated to CRC or NPS and potentially with reporting instructions.

We were told there will be "train the trainer" training sometime in February, and SPOCs in each borough will then train staff. SPOCs have not yet been identified. This training is obviously after the proposed start date for “Through the Gate”.

Lawyers, Court Clerks and Benches also appear to be in the dark about imminent changes and may be looking to the probation staff in court for answers which we are not equipped to give. Some seemed to think that the changes were not in fact coming into play on 1st Feb, and none have been briefed.

Serco staff working in the cells were not aware of the changes and possible impact on them at all - this is concerning as they will be pivotal in distributing licences to those released on the same day, and we will need more access to prisoners in the custody suite post-sentence to do RSR/CAS assessments or give reporting instructions, potentially late in the day.

It is unlikely that custody staff will be willing to wait in order for us to interview in the afternoon. 

There is also an issue re interviewing space where it is also used by solicitors/drug teams/mental health teams.

There is regularly a queue for interview space.

Conclusions

The responses speak for themselves and confirm what we suspected.

The splitting of the Probation Service into two separate organisations put pressure on our members in courts who were tasked with assessing risk and ensuring that cases were allocated correctly. Inadequate resources were provided for these additional tasks and this has resulted in additional work for our members. In some cases the stress involved has had an adverse effect on members’ health. Many courts report staff shortages and lack of resources to do the tasks that they are being asked.

We ask that management recognise this and, while seeking solutions to ameliorate the problem of lack of resources, pay due regard to the pressures that our members are working under. Threats are unhelpful in this situation as may be seeking to compare one court with another.

There is a need for clarity with regard to role boundaries. Too often it seems as if tasks are being completed on the basis of which staff are available rather than which staff are appropriate. Such practices cannot be allowed to continue.

As members at court are being asked to do more tasks, concerns were also raised about the facilities available to enable them to do so. It would appear that not all courts have enough space to enable members to conduct interviews safely and appropriately.

Preparation for the changes due to be implemented on 1st February have been woefully inadequate. Our members are greatly concerned and worried about being placed in invidious positions in open court. Such matters need to be addressed as a matter of urgency by Senior Management.

We are aware that some of the problems are not of the making of the Senior Management Team of the NPS in London. Nevertheless, local management must take responsibility for local implementation and for the welfare of staff.

We would be willing to meet with local management to discuss how, within the national strictures and instructions, court work practices can be developed to ensure the welfare and well being of our members.

Pat Waterman
Branch Chair
Greater London Branch NAPO

Finally, I've also become aware of this request from the Guardian through Napo HQ:-  
  
28^th January 2015 
Dear Colleague 
  
Guardian feature on Probation staff morale – Urgent request for members to take part 
  
We have been contacted by a journalist, Tamsin Rutter, who works for the Guardian Public Leaders Network -http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network - and who is planning a feature about TR and the impact it is having on probation staff. 
  
She would like to talk to Napo members about the impact on staff such as morale, workloads and other personal testimonies and is happy for this to be on an anonymous basis and in confidence. 
  
If you or any members of your branch would be willing to talk to Tamsin could you let me know by Wednesday 4 February and I will either pass the contact details on to her or give the member her details so they can contact her direct (whichever is preferred). It would be useful to know if the member is in a CRC or the NPS and which area they are from, just so we can make sure she is speaking to a mixture of people. 
  
Email me on tbassett@napo.org.uk or contact Kath Falcon kfalcon@napo.org.uk – tel. 020 7362 9981.

Best wishes,

Tania Bassett

NPS News

Whilst we continue to tread water and await what wonderfully innovative plans the new owners of the CRC's have in store for us, here's a page filler in the form of a breezy staff bulletin from Roz Hamilton, Deputy Director of NPS North West. I'm conscious it contains a raft of yet more acronyms and I'll do my best to add them to the glossary as soon as possible.

My guess is that much the same sort of upbeat stuff will be contained in similar bulletins for the other regions, but hopefully we can rely on readers to send in anything of particular note. For those really keen on such matters, I notice that the MoJ have published the NPS Service Level Agreements on their website and that for the North West can be found here.

I'd just remind people that, given this 'lull before the storm' scenario, now would be a really good time to get any burning issues off your chest and think seriously about submitting a guest blog. If I run out of copy that's probation-related, I just might start wandering off onto other hobby horses of mine such as conspiracies, the state of our democracy, Greece and debt, the failure of capitalism etc, etc. You've been warned.  

NORTH WEST NATIONAL PROBATION SERVICE CONNECT COMMUNICATION - 8 JANUARY 2015

Hello everyone,

A Happy New Year to each and every NW NPS colleague. I hope you will all agree with me that we can look forward to building a new organisation and lay the foundations in 2015 to becoming a world class public protection agency.

You have started the year well.

Our performance in relation to the completion of RSR/CAS is excellent. Despite significant disruption in court work both our performance and feedback from our key stakeholders – Judges and Magistrates, remain extremely positive. In 2015 we see:

• The introduction of a new CAS form which will help us ensure that the quality of information passed to offender managers is of a high standard and ensure the delivery of quality interventions with offenders 
• The introduction of the Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) with new sentencing options such as the new Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) 
• An increase in the number of cases dealt with on the day in Magistrates courts 
• New approaches to enforcement including the enforcement of electronic monitoring 

All these initiatives in court will require new robust plans both nationally and locally with new structures and training for colleague. I am confident that with the high quality of our court staff that we will succeed.

In offender management we see on a daily basis excellence in the supervision of offenders. Our OM’s strive to work with dangerousness, protection of victims and the management of risk with dedication and inspired by the desire to do a high quality job. The work is supported ably by administrators of all grades who alongside our divisional support hub provide a strong and valuable infrastructure which ensures we can demonstrate our effectiveness.

In 2015 we will see:

• The supervision of U12 month prisoners, some who will be high risk 
• New interventions provided by the CRC’s to reduce reoffending which we will purchase as part of our supervision of High Risk offenders 
• Improved confidence and knowledge and experience in the management of risk 
• New approaches in our work with foreign nationals, sex offenders, the delivery of Sex Offender Treatment Programmes (SOTP), disordered offenders and Integrated Offender Management (IOM)
• New structures for the delivery of admin support 
• The introduction of the social care act which places a duty on local authorities to provide services for vulnerable elderly offenders. 

Again, new initiatives will be introduced in a planned way with training opportunities. I am extremely committed to staff engagement at all grades including discussion about any new initiatives and for all to have the opportunity to contribute to improve practice right across the organisation.

The importance of our work with victims will also see changes as we negotiate with CRC’s as to how we will deliver the services for low/medium risk cases. We have an absolutely outstanding group of victim practitioners and administrators who I am sure will embrace this opportunity and continue to provide invaluable public protection services.

We are very fortunate to have inherited a thriving Approved Premises estate which is responsive both to the risks and needs of the most serious offenders in our community. I want to acknowledge the commitment and care shown by our AP staff day in and day out often with vulnerable and damaged individuals which is inspirational.

2015 will bring:

• An increase in the number of enabling environments in APs across the division to improve the quality of our public protection work 
• The introduction of specific services in APs for personality disorder women offenders 
• Closer working relationships with our voluntary AP, Adelaide House, in Merseyside 
• Greater consistency of provision across the division 

We are building our strong foundations and I am confident that the commitment and flexibility of our colleagues in APs will ensure that we introduce these new approaches successfully.

Changes to the role of seconded staff in prisons in 2015 will mean a restructuring of probation services, firstly in the open and women’s establishments and then resettlement prisons. The ORA means working alongside CRC colleagues for under 12 month provision. We will need to plan for changes ensuring our seconded staff are fully informed and involved in the process. The new approaches provide real opportunities for our NPS seconded prison colleagues to demonstrate their expertise in risk assessment and management.

2015 also brings an unprecedented number of Probation learners to the NW including the development of at least 2 student units in Southwood and Salford. Any organisation willing to share with learners and to learn from learners will reap the benefits in terms of quality and confidence in practice. I know the exciting and positive opportunities this will bring NPS NW will be embraced by all grades of staff and very much look forward to working with the Probation staff of the future.

In the past 6 months we have been joined by business partners many from different disciplines who bring a positive mixture of freshness and experience with them to support us in managing the NPS going forward.

So, we have much to look forward to and much to be proud of!! As the inevitable distractions, disruption and concerns of our change agenda frustrate us over the next 12 months lets remember and prepared to be reminded of the excellent work we do. Lets look forward and be positive. I know we are a problem solving organisation and you will join me in achieving that world class NPS.

With very best wishes,

Roz