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."

All Going To Plan

News is coming in from all parts of the country that the TR omnishambles mobilsation plan is, well, all going to plan:- 

TR is a two tier system. We know it can't work, and evidence is already emerging within the first week of operating the systems in out Trust that it's not just about refining the processes given, but that the processes won't work in any way. The PPO issue is a very interesting one, as all PPO staff in our Trust were sifted to CRC.

So, NPS will have all MAPPA, most PPOs, large number of IOMs, High Risk, ALL reports (every single existing one, plus some new ones especially for TR), all Court and enforcement work, risk escalation decisions and takeovers, all prison secondments and all YOS secondments, public interest cases, approved premises. Clearly it isn't going to work. It's madness. CRC are left with interventions (UPW, Programmes and Skills4Work), low and medium risk cases and head office and back office functions. 

In our Trust the operational CRC functions have already been pared to the bone. It's only the 'back office', non frontline services which our Trust has sought to protect. So, although I'm not looking forward to TR and don't think it could work, or will happen as the govt want it to, I will certainly not be mourning the end of my Trust, and to be honest I don't want their head office led enterprise (sorry 'mutual') to win the contract for our CPA - an existing outsourcer would protect the frontline better. And I think that will be the obituary for the Trusts - "should have thought about services, could have done better".

However, unlike others on this blog, I am full of admiration for the SPOs in my office. They are in an invidious situation and doing exceptionally in such difficult circumstances. There is little wrong with the front line, only that we have to work with terrible systems - OASys & NDelius - the systems that made us so inefficient, and remember the creation of these came from the same people who lead our Trusts.

***********
The Chief Constable was off on a right one last week when I informed her of our new 'working practices' and the fact that T4's will now be seen as/when, with her staff (Police) now having to pick up the majority of appointments. Suffice to say that her view of both TR and our Trust is very much jaundiced. Still, she cannot say she was not warned.

********
I've had a day from hell at the other end of the justice sausage machine. Many, many years a PO, now allocated CRC because apparently that was how it panned out on 11 Nov. This week seems to be the start of some unofficial trial of the split as I get handed case after case sentenced from court based upon a range of reports written by nps-allocated staff. I am sitting here on the commute home heartbroken and shocked at the appalling quality of those reports. Atrocious grammar, spelling mistakes galore, judgemental opinion, assumption and condemnation. Everything I was taught not to do when writing a report. And they are a mix of PO and PSO - this aint no purge on any grade.

Without fail the cases seem to all have received what I would regard as a requirement too many (5 in one case) or Orders far longer than I would have suggested.

I hadn't realised how dire things had become. Why are the courts accepting such poor quality documents? How has it become so bad? Where did all the gatekeepers go?

*************
Senior managers destined for the NPS are making decisions about the CRC-why? The staff list for the CRC is full of so-called back office staff with frontline workers as rare as hen's teeth, whereas the NPS is mainly made up of practitioners. Do bidders know they will inherit a load of IT staff and office managers-that will supervise them a lot of offenders?

As a team manager with 35 years plus in the service I was automatically assigned to the CRC-no one has asked me what I want, the decision has nothing to do with my working record (I have managed every type of Probation team other than an AP) and selecting people for compulsory redundancy has a greater element of fairness to it than selecting people on the basis of what they were doing on a retrospective date. 

I am amazed that the whole premise on what sifting has been based, along with automatic assignment has not been challenged legally. I am looking for another job and if successful my resignation letter will cite TR and the impact of sifting as the reason. We need to get mileage into this, in other walks of life it could be construed as constructive dismissal. If everyone who leaves the service as a result of TR gives this as the reason in their resignation letter you are registering your grievance for the future and making it a public record. Send copies to the Chair of your Board (whether defunct or not) and Grayling.

***********
At the moment I feel exhausted, drained and to he honest destroyed by this job. As a CRC Officer, I'm being allocated more cases than I know what to do with, yet all my time is taken up with my NPS caseload and PSR's. I can barely face going into the office, I feel physically sick every morning, I'm not sleeping and am suffering from excruciating headaches. I don't feel well enough to be in work, but I' m too scared to see my GP. Being nowhere near retirement age VER is not an option. If I see my GP and am signed off will this be held against me by my future private sector employers? If there's a chance of moving into NPS, will a previous GP note go against me? All I can do is haul myself into work every day and pray it gets better.

************
Won't be long now before someone is killed or seriously hurt as a result of this TR bullshit. The momentum is building. It will most likely, in my humble opinion, be the (ex-) partner, or a probation staff member, or a prison officer. It will be at a time when anger and emotion and fear are funnelled into an explosive response to the wrong question, the wrong facial expression. I was told I'm a fucking cunt today... Duty call, no delius because of a server failure, no managers in the building (TR training event). No more team meetings/briefings means no shared information. TR is the final nail in that coffin. Nothing shared, commercially sensitive, what price humanity?

***********
Got into work at 8.50am. Saw 12 cases today - 5 newly allocated inductions (3 of which I wasn't even aware of until they arrived because newly devised system didn't allow for notification of sentences out of area), 6 existing cases who I had to see to break the TR transfer news to, and 1 duty call. Also had to squeeeeze in a hurried oasys for an emergency transfer, complete a written witness statement regarding a police investigation, deal with an inbox of 75 overnight emails (mainly crap), wrestle with delius to try & input what had happened that day - plus I spent 45 mins of my lunch hour with IT support trying to locate an oasys that it turns out never existed. Got home at 7.45pm, fell asleep within minutes. Just woke up after dreaming about work. Haven't seen or exchanged a single word with partner this evening - I'm just about to tiptoe into the box room so I don't wake them.

TR has fucked up everything, even the simple existing and very basic allocation of cases, because some daft *#%$ has decided they have to redesign everything to meet the TR brand. "Fit for purpose" was one of those bullshit made up phrases of the 90's used to excuse poorly designed, expensive packages. Then we had "it'll do" solution-focused ideas. Now we seem to have "make it work regardless, stupid".

TR is just crass stupidity. Its been an oft- used analogy, the emperor is bollock naked yet everyone is fawning over the platinum threads in the finest golden weave. Meantime the charlatans, the snake oil salesmen and the corrupt are filling their pockets. Those who should have raised the alarm, i.e. The Trusts, have been guilty of dereliction of duty.

Time for bed said Zebedee.

RIP OM Part 2

This is the Annex A referred to in part one. The Annex B table is virtually unintelligible and has been omitted.  

PAPER TO THE OMCP BOARD OF 2 SEPTEMBER 2013 – ANNEX A

Offender Management Change Programme Board

Meeting Date:	2 September 2013
Agenda Item:	4
Paper Title:	Case Management Responsibilities in Prisons
Purpose of Item:	For decision
Circulation Restrictions:	Board members only

OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CASES DURING THE CUSTODIAL ELEMENT OF A SENTENCE

Issue

1. Confirming where offender management responsibility for offenders sentenced to 12 months or more rests during the core custodial period.

Background

2. Since the introduction of the Rehabilitation Programme (RP), the Through the Gate (TTG) project has designed resettlement services to support offenders during the transitional period between custody and community. There is a particular emphasis on the last 3 months of the sentence, when TTG providers will provide services direct to offenders within resettlement prisons. TTG is also realigning prisons to ensure that 80% of offenders are released from a resettlement prison in their Contract Package Area.

3. Offender management responsibilities to cover the core custodial period (i.e. rehabilitation, rather than resettlement work) for offenders serving 12 months or more are out of scope for TTG. The decision for allocation of OM responsibility during this time falls to the Offender Management Change Programme (OMCP), but must take account of the changes under RP and the Prison Unit Cost Programme (PUCP).

4. The original Offender Management Model introduced two new roles: the Offender Manager (based in the community); and the Offender Supervisor (based in prisons). The Offender Manager was directly responsible for the management of all cases in scope of the Offender Management Model, meaning they were tasked with driving the sentence, including completion of all assessment and sentence planning activity. In these cases, the Offender Supervisor (OS) was tasked with the day to day delivery of the sentence plan, in liaison with the Offender Manager at key stages. The “in-scope” cases covered all offenders serving 12 months or more who were assessed through OASys as High or Very High Risk of Harm; all those sentenced to Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (IPP); and all those identified as Prolific and Priority Offenders (PPOs).

5. The introduction of the Manage the Custodial Sentence (MTCS) Service Specification (transitional version) in October 2012 brought into scope of Offender Management all other offenders sentenced to 12 months or more. The newly added offenders were those assessed at Low or Medium Risk of Serious Harm (ROSH). During the custodial period these offenders were allocated to the direct management responsibility of the OS, rather than being managed by an Offender Manager (OM) in the community. The OS was, therefore, responsible for assessment and sentence planning for these cases.

6. As a result, under the transitional MTCS Service Specification, some cases are managed by the prison and others by the OM in the community, during the core custodial period.

7. Since the first implementation of offender management for custodial cases in November 2006, it has proved difficult to deliver the original vision of the OM model. In particular, OMs based in the community have not consistently been able to “drive” the sentence during custody. There have been a number of reasons for this, including time constraints and geography restricting OMs from visiting the relevant prisons. Whilst video conferencing and teleconferencing allow some communication, these do not allow OMs to build effective relationships and therefore authority with their offenders. In addition, OMs, with some exceptions, have found it difficult to lead and direct activity from outside the prison environment. Finally, OMs have often had to prioritise other cases - e.g. those already on licence, or subject to an imminent Parole Review. In practice, the majority of cases are “driven” by the OS instead, albeit with key input from the OM at review stages.

8. A number of reports, including joint OM inspections by HM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation, have highlighted these difficulties, notwithstanding some examples of good practice.

(Annex A provides an outline of some of the concerns raised in inspections and other reports in relation to the existing Offender Management approach to cases whilst in custody.)

9. As a result of the persistent difficulties, before the TRP was introduced, it was the intention of the OMCP to transfer management responsibility for all cases to the OS whilst they were in custody, in line with the Specifications, Benchmarking and Costing (SBC) teams’ original plans.

Discussion

10. Following the changes introduced by the TRP, it is a good time to consider whether this intention should still be pursued. We envisage two broad options:

i) Mirror the TRP split of cases with regards to OM in custody:  retained National Probation Service (NPS) cases could be managed by the community-based probation OM, whilst the contracted out cases could be managed by the prison-based OS during the custodial period.

The benefits of this model include retaining continuity for NPS-managed cases; and employing the expertise of community-based probation officers for MAPPA/high-risk cases. However, the risks of this model are that for retained cases, all the difficulties described above associated with managing a case from the community would persist.

ii)  Transfer responsibility for all custodial cases to prison-based staff. Under this arrangement, assessments and sentence plans would be completed by the custody-based OS in all cases. However, for NPS retained cases, a seconded probation officer in the prison would have responsibility for driving and overseeing the case, working with the OS.* It is envisaged that a community-based OM would still be designated for NPS-retained cases. However, demands on these officers would reduce: they would no longer bear formal responsibility to drive the case, but they would still be advised of progress and given the opportunity to contribute to the case at key stages, including sentence planning reviews. Further, at the 6 months pre-release stage, or at commencement of any parole process, responsibility for the case, including assessment, would transfer from custody to the community.**

The benefits of this approach would be that the prison-based staff would be given formal responsibility to drive the sentence for all cases (which has often become the default position in any case). Responsibility for the offender management of contracted out cases would therefore sit with Band 4 OS's; whilst the responsibility for NPS-retained cases would sit with seconded probation officers in the relevant prison, who then would be able to pro-actively drive the sentence plan delivery and build up a direct relationship with the offender, working with the OS.

However, there would also be some risks to this model: some continuity across the length of the sentence could be lost, including through prison transfers. In addition, OS's in prisons do not have the full range of OM skills, training or experience that probation officers do and they are sometimes expected to perform other functions within the prison. Further, the PUC benchmarking has, in some cases, reduced the overall resource in custody, whilst Fair and Sustainable has also impacted on the numbers of experienced prison-based OS's in post, putting strain on the system. The success of the model would therefore depend heavily on the quality and experience of the seconded probation officer for NPS-retained cases, as well as strong support to OS’s and their managers to build the skills and experience to maintain high standards of OM for all cases.

11. The Offender Assessment and Management Section (OAMS) considers that some of the risks of Option 2) can be mitigated. OAMS is working with the Business Development Group on the design and implementation of the new seconded probation role for prisons, referred to above. An initial design for the seconded probation role has been agreed at ISAB and is due for consultation shortly with prison Governors, Probation Trusts, and other key stakeholders.

12. OAMS will also focus on developing OSs’ abilities, through case reviews and advice, improved training and support networks such as the OMU Managers’ Forum.

On balance, it is recommended that the original intention to transfer OM responsibility to prisons should be pursued, in parallel with the development of the new probation role in custody, which will need to be adequately resourced. Resource risks and loss of experience around OM in custody following the PUC and Fair and Sustainable should continue to be monitored closely.

(A summary table of the two options with benefits and risks is at Annex B.)

Decision required:

13. This paper seeks the Boards views on the proposal to:

• Transfer management responsibility for all cases to the prison during the custodial period; 

• Retain a seconded probation oversight for the retained NPS cases, to ‘drive’ the sentence, working with the OS, until the point of formal handover to the community Offender Manager six months pre-release; 

• Confirm the principle that all NPS retained cases will still have a named community Offender Manager from the start of sentence, and be able to contribute to sentence planning meetings and other key events as necessary. 

14. Subject to the views of the OMCP Board, a paper seeking final approval will be drafted for the Implementation and Service Acceptance Board (ISAB).

GM

* There would remain a question of whether the community Offender Manager should still complete an initial assessment and sentence plan for all Extended Determinate and Life sentence cases, as now.

** Should an offender get a negative decision following a parole hearing, the case would return to the prison for assessment and management purposes, until the next parole review process commenced.

The Prisoners 2

I think most people would agree that these fly-on-the-wall documentaries about prisons make for particularly depressing viewing, and episode 2 of the BBC1 series The Prisoners didn't disappoint in that regard. To the uninitiated, it should give a degree of insight into the scale and scope of some of the problems probation have to try and deal with on a daily basis. 

This episode featured heavily two female prisoners at HMP Holloway, one of the largest women's prisons in Europe we were told. Jayde, although only 18, has apparently spent most of her formative years in the care system and hence a variety of institutions. Emotionally she has been clearly damaged by her experiences and now adopts a pattern of dangerous attention seeking behaviour involving applying ligatures to her neck. Her binge-drinking only makes her violent tendencies even worse when back in the community and frequent breaches of her stringent PPO licence conditions only mean regular recalls. Ironically it's only prison where she feels cared for and safe.  

What always depresses me the most about clients like Jayde, or Crystal the 23 year-old who poignantly recounted how 'some of her best times' had been in prison, is that this didn't suddenly happen over night. Each has been through a range of statutory agencies before arriving at our doorstep, but we are expected to try and fix the problem. It seems that Crystal was diagnosed as being bi-polar some time previously, but for what ever reason this hadn't been treated successfully in the community. In her case, following a near-successful suicide attempt, it seems that only being 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Act enabled her to be stabilised on medication. 

It was sad to see Crystal feeling obliged to give up her tenancy in Southend, and I did wonder what if any support she'd been getting there. Of course it doesn't help with 'through-the-gate' support when the prison is some considerable distance away, potential probation bidders please note. I also notice that a residential rehab place was found for her. This is an incredibly expensive and rarely available opportunity, but not surprisingly it didn't work. We have a lot to learn regarding drug and alcohol treatments and I found myself daydreaming about the amazing Italian San Patrignano project that works holistically with people and was featured on tv in 2011.       

I don't want to repeat what I said following the first episode, but each of the clients featured here, including Jason the 27 year-old crack cocaine user, would benefit from counselling in one shape or another. You only have to watch how Jayde responds to the care and concern of officer Kelly to see how each is yearning to be understood and listened to. I suspect the two women may well have suffered some form of abuse earlier in their life and one of the results can be constant episodes of self-harming or other seriously reckless behaviour. Talking about such things is extremely difficult of course and can only happen within an established and trusting professional relationship.

A measure of the degree of institutionalisation can be glimpsed when Crystal observes that 'if only we were allowed out now and then to get some clothes and do some shopping, I don't think I'd ever leave'. She felt 'looked after inside. Was clean, well fed, happy and healthy. It's like home with friends'. What a sad indictment and something to ponder on. 

This series should be required viewing for any organisation considering bidding for our work on a Payment by Results basis. Is it really any wonder that reoffending rates are so high when one sees the reality of the problem posed by such chaotic offenders? There is no quick fix to such entrenched behaviours and problems. It takes a great deal of patience, time and effort and not at all conducive to Payment by Results. 

Sign the No10 petition here.

Dispatches from Bristol

The latest episode of Channel 4's 'Dispatches' screened on Monday 13th June and entitled 'The Thief Catchers' helped shed a bit more light on what dealing with chronic long term users of heroin was like when they're not a rich banker or wealthy bond trader. In order to feed their habit, each has to steal a small fortune on a regular basis either through shoplifting, street robbery or burglary. There is a general trend towards escalation in offending as their faces get well known to shopkeepers and they get moved on. Lying to all and sundry becomes automatic and consummate, even to friends and family in order to satisfy the constant craving for another fix.

In Bristol this type of offender comes within the remit of a Safer Community Partnership
initiative called IMPACT, but run in close co-operation with the local Drug Intervention Programme. The documentary served to illustrate just how the police have become key players in the whole 'offender management' business as a result of the last Labour governments 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' policy. I know partnerships are a much vaunted thing nowadays, but it still struck me that PC Dave was just doing PO Declans job.

The film followed the fortunes of three long-term male drug users, each of whom had earned the title 'prolific offender.' I found this slightly confusing because I don't think IMPACT is a Prolific and other Priority Offender project (PPO), but there are so many acronyms in offending nowadays it might be. Such schemes are similarly made up of all relevant agencies and undertake to offer clients a so-called 'premium' service. The IMPACT initiative did seem to be run on similar lines as supported accommodation appeared to be on offer pretty quickly, as did drug treatment or 'rehab' as it was continually referred to. 

Unfortunately the makers of the film never told us exactly what sort of drug treatment the three guys received. My guess is that it would have been methadone replacement and I don't call this 'being in rehab'. The trouble is that definitions have changed as proper residential drug rehab beds have become like hens teeth. A place in a hostel and community prescribing through DIP I guess now counts as 'rehab, but as Shaun's case in particular demonstrates, changing entrenched attitudes and long-term addictions is a mighty uphill struggle and failure is routine. Well it is when we insist on not using alternatives like prescribing heroin. I suspect Shaun wouldn't have felt quite the need to blow his entire Community Care grant of £2,000 on street gear if he could get a script.

Actually Shaun highlighted how the whole person and all their needs have to be addressed in order to try and effect change. His arm-slashing whilst in prison was not so much a mental health issue as an emotional issue, but this is often misunderstood as the recent 'Strangeways' documentaries showed on ITV. 

Overall a useful insight I suppose into just how difficult and depressing the whole subject of drug-abuse is. I did chuckle at one point early on though when we saw a typical new-looking probation officer, or probation services officer, walk into the interview room with several large ring binders, one of which looking suspiciously like an OASys manual. We watched her telling the guy that she wanted him to do a victim empathy test and place various offences in order of seriousness. Unfortunately we didn't hear how she dealt with his reasoning that maybe murder was quite understandable in certain circumstances and possession of a firearm wasn't that serious.      

What Do We Do With Billy?

The 'Billy' in question stars in a recent post by Inspector Gadjet. Although he lives on the Swamp Estate in Ruraltown, I certainly recognise him and so I suspect do most probation officers. We're not told how old he is, but he still seems to live at home with his mum and he is the father of a daughter. I'm sure he turned up recently in episode 7 of the BBC three fly-on-the-wall documentary series 'The Lock Up' filmed at Hull custody suite. He was the small irritating young guy going on about 'needing to get out to see his bairn'.

'Billy' has 100 previous convictions and has just been arrested on suspicion of nicking a minibus FFS. I don't know about you, but I put that kind of offence in the juvenile pain-in-the-backside sort of category. What on earth might the motive be? Perhaps he wanted to spare his legs walking home? He was no doubt bored and it was opportunistic. He's obviously not very sophisticated because DNA left at the scene eventually took the police to his mothers door. He cooperated fully and we are told even volunteered the location of the DVD player taken from the dashboard.

According to Inspector Gadjet's thesis 'Billy' should be locked up for very long periods of time basically for being a pain-in-the-backside. I have a degree of sympathy because I'm sure it was 'Billy' who had a go at breaking into my car last year. First he smashed a window to try and get the door open, then left a spot of blood behind whilst trying to bend the top of the door and get his hand inside. He eventually discovered that my make of car has dead-locked doors and even if he had got in, being a SAAB the gear stick is locked into reverse. All very inept, annoying and ultimately pointless. Hopefully his eventual arrest will serve to remind him that he's not a very successful car thief and he either needs to get better or pack it in.

Of course 'Billy'  is the product of his environment. He grew up in a community probably suffering second and third generation unemployment as all the unskilled jobs went ages ago. He will have failed at school and was probably excluded at about age 13, whereupon he started smoking and drinking cheap alcohol in earnest on the streets with all his similarly-excluded mates. Any youth provision will have closed ages ago and his drift into regular irritating crime and anti-social behaviour will have started. His offending history may well have been enhanced by being made subject of an ASBO and possibly even by elevation to PPO status where he would have been the beneficiary of a 'premium service'  that ensured even quicker arrest.
Thankfully this 'Billy' doesn't seem to have got onto heroin.

So, what are we to do with 'Billy'? Well fortunately evidence and experience shows that he will eventually grow out of it. Even he will finally discover that his behaviour is a pain-in-the-backside and the inevitable girlfriend will certainly remind him at regular intervals. Indeed in all likelihood it will be her who eventually succeeds in providing 'Billy' with the structure, supervision and boundaries that his life has needed all along. Hopefully she will re-inforce all the positive work that the YOT and probation service will be trying to undertake with 'Billy'. Of course what would be best of all is that this young man grew up in a society where all this could have been avoided in the first place. But that's a wee bit radical isn't it? 

Probation and Police

I've been thinking of writing something about the relationship between probation and the police for some time and a recent query from a PC has finally prompted me to try and tackle the topic. Regular readers will be aware that Inspector Gadjets excellent blog was part of the inspiration for this blog and from time to time I'm tempted to add comments on certain of his posts. As other non-police officers have discovered, this can result in some startling responses from police officers and be somewhat akin to grabbing the lions tail. But the blogosphere is about debate and enlightenment as well as entertainment and it's in that spirit that I make my contributions. But in essence the question I have been posed is, what is the current relationship like and has it always been the same?. 

At the time I joined the Probation Service in 1985, most officers were in their late 40's and 50's and typically had joined following a career doing something else. Most were men, but along with the teaching profession after the Second World War, probation was in the vanguard of appointing women. The Service was set up by statute in 1907 and grew out of the work done by the Police Court Missionaries. Early on there was a strong Christian ethos within the Service and for example it was routine for staff to hold a prayer meeting at my office only a few years prior to my arrival. However this aspect faded away as 'professionalism' spread within the Service, hand in hand with the development of social work theory and the recognition of the importance of training. This was basically the period when to be a probation officer was a highly regarded position and officers enjoyed widespread respect.

Even so, I suspect that right from the beginning most people were confused as to exactly what the role of a probation officer was. For this reason it was customary when I joined for an experienced officer to talk to each new intake of officers at the County Police Training School. We also did 'exchanges' in those days and I was fortunate to spend a week trailing around with a beat bobby. I was never sure what he made of it, but for quite a few years I had new police officers spending a day with me in return, getting to know what the job entailed. Long before Youth Offending Teams and CPS was set up, a task given to me by the boss was the fortnightly 'cautioning panel' chaired by the local police Inspector. Over a cup of tea and biscuits, myself and a social worker used to do lighthearted battle with an Education Welfare Officer and the Inspector over which juveniles could be cautioned and which prosecuted. 

In 1985 the miners strike and its effects were still very raw and for years as a PO I had to try and deal with the ramifications. You became aware of numerous testimonies that did not paint the police in a favourable light, but I'm not aware that it ever interfered with my or the Service's professional relationships with the police. In truth there has always been close and quite frequent contact, especially with officers in the Child Protection, Domestic Violence and Sex Offender units. Until the Multi Agency Public Protection process was simplified, PO's regularly had the chance of discussing difficult and high risk cases with police officers and invariably it was our two agencies that had the best intelligence. Of course in more recent times contact has been cemented formally through Youth Offending Teams,  Prolific and Priority Offender projects and the new Integrated Offender Management process. 

In a sense though, none of this specialist or high level stuff touches the ordinary PC and their perception of probation and what the hell it's all about. To paraphrase, I suspect a significant view persists that basically 'the police 'catch 'em' and a soft liberal Probation Service conspires with an equally soft Judicial System to 'get 'em off'. Although I would say this is ridiculous and a grossly simplistic distortion and misrepresentation, I think most PO's have been aware of this view and the limited opportunity of countering it. It is unfortunate, because we have always had a shared responsibility towards public protection. It's just that our methods are necessarily different because we occupy very different parts of the CJS.

Police involvement with an offender basically ends at the time the file goes to CPS. We work with that person right through their sentence and in the past beyond voluntarily. Part of the trouble is that what we do is complex and not easily distilled into attention-grabbing soundbites for tabloid and public consumption. I suspect this is one reason why there has never been a significant TV drama series based on our work. But it has been one reason for this blog.

But there's another factor at play as well. Regular readers will be aware that I have discussed at some length the cultural revolution that has taken place within the Service over the last fifteen years or so. Probation Officers are no longer qualified social workers like myself and our mantra is no longer advise assist and befriend. We were officially dubbed a Law Enforcement Agency and are now joined at the hip to the Prison Service under the joint management of the National Offender Management Service.

A new breed of enforcement and punishment-orientated Probation Officers have been around for ten years, not to mention a growing army of mostly unqualified Probation Services Officers delivering what many of us old-timers would call a very different and less effective service. There is now a widespread perception that the formerly caring Service has given way to a somewhat purely punishment and enforcement-focused Service which many of us are not happy about. It has been suggested that our perception amongst police officers might have changed for the better as a result. Please tell me it hasn't!    

         

What Makes a Career Criminal?

I know it's probably not wise to take too much notice of what the Daily Mail says, but I'll make an exception today. The Mail is fulminating about so-called career criminals who have accumulated over 100 convictions and have not gone to jail. A recently retired magistrate adds his two-penneth complaining about 'do-goodery' and extolling the virtues of Michael Howards view that prison works.

Lets take the last point first - does prison work? The answer of course is yes and no. As Inspector Gadjet has previously noted on his blog, prison does indeed give the community protection for the period that an offender is removed from it. But what's the point of that if the underlying reasons for committing the offences are not dealt with or worse, if the offenders situation has deteriorated, for example through loss of accommodation and therefore re-offending is made more likely upon release? At the present time anyone serving less than 12 months gets no help from the probation service, unless they are under 21. It strikes me that this is not a very sophisticated way of dealing with the initial problem and in fact quite likely to make matters worse.  

It's regrettable to hear a recently retired magistrate rubbishing 'do-goodery' and by extension I guess the probation service. Unfortunately I think this is one consequence of breaking the historic link between the Magistracy and probation. Through much of my career it was typical practice to meet members of the local bench at least every four months in order to discuss matters of mutual concern, present case studies, take part in joint sentencing exercises and inform magistrates of new initiatives. These were often lively affairs and well attended, and not just because I suspect they were regarded as contributing towards an on-going training requirement. Most importantly they served as a valuable conduit for understanding so that comments like those in today's Daily Mail would be less likely. 

When there is any discussion of locking more people up, I think it is relevant to remind protagonists of this argument that Britain already has the highest rate of imprisonment of any other comparable European country. This begs two questions, why is this country so different and does it not indicate something is going seriously wrong with our current approach to the problem? 

Over the years, I'm not sure I've ever met many 'career' criminals as a probation officer. On the other hand I've seen quite a few when watching tv programmes like 'Watchdog'. To me a career criminal is someone who makes a conscious, calculated decision to make a business out of crime, say 'ripping' people off, quite often vulnerable people, safe in the knowledge that apprehension will be most unlikely. Many are likely to be smart and middle class involved in financial fraud, in addition to the perhaps more stereotypical 'dodgy builder' types. Accumulating a lot of convictions does not make someone a career criminal. I've had quite a few elderly men who have very lengthy records and without exception they are sad, institutionalised individuals who find living in the community too frightening or difficult and so typically commit alcohol-related offences in order to return to a place where they feel more at home - prison. They are not career criminals in my book.

I suspect the Daily Mail is really talking about a relatively small, but significant group of prolific offenders. This group typically commit large numbers of offences within a short period of time and often have multiple problems that should have been addressed somewhat earlier. I guess this brings me into the realms of 'do-goodery'. For this group, custody may prove beneficial for some if all other avenues have been explored and they use the experience to gain qualifications and are able to deal with drug and alcohol issues. I've seen many young men changed for the good by YOI, but equally it can damage others.

The evidence shows that many just stop their chronic offending and grow out of it as part of the maturing process or by forming a relationship. On more than one occasion I've speculated that for some young men, the probation service might have more success if we operated a dating agency. I cannot overstate the dramatic effect a girlfriend can sometimes have on a young mans offending pattern. She often replaces the control previously exercised by mum and says 'you're not going out'.  It might make a nice research project to compare this group with the ones on Prolific and other Priority Offender (PPO) initiatives run by the police.