Frontline Messages

Yesterday saw a surprising jump in viewing figures for a Sunday and I'm mystified as to the reason. Twitter may have played a part as over time I've been increasingly aware that posting pithy reflective soundbites from blog contributions seems to drive extra interest and hence traffic. All very obvious to marketing strategists I suppose, but still somewhat novel to my prosaic world of public service. 

Maybe it's all to do with the science of 'nudge theory' even though I gather it's neither a science nor theory. Anyway, it seems to work and as I've already remarked, regular reader 'Getafix is very adept at supplying 'Twitter-ready' soundbites such as the following, 'liked' and retweeted many times yesterday:-

"The large numbers of prisoners that are now being released homeless reminds me just how vague and abstract the concept of rehabilitation has become. Building more prisons to help with rehabilitation. Reshaping probation to help with rehabilitation. How? Where? When? The word rehabilitation has become an insert into a verbal phrase designed to sound positive, but has no real meaning or context anymore. It's become a soundbite. I think it's time the State defined what it actually means when it talks of offender rehabilitation, because I for one haven't a clue anymore." 

--oo00oo--

Not a 'soundbite' as such, but I want to highlight the following heartfelt contribution on the subject of housing which certainly reflects my own thoughts and experience over the years. I well remember being outraged when my local Housing Authority proudly announced in the 1990's that police officers were being seconded to their allocations team in order to ensure only 'suitable' people were offered housing. I would remind readers that in those days an independent Probation Service was able to set up its own housing projects in order to address such social policy failures. Of course this is not possible nowadays under direct civil service command and control:-   

"The UK takes a capitalist approach to housing, and that saddens me; in the UK if you cannot "afford" a house, then frankly you can't have one. Landlords, second home owners, people renting rooms have all profited - the system is so skewed in favour of landlords who ask for ridiculous sums of money up front, incentives, rent deposits, month up front, and when they sell the house having done nothing to earn it, they throw the tenants out, who have to start the whole cycle again.

In my world housing would be a basic human right - in the UK we have voted in countless Tory majority governments and this is the price of that.

Housing service users has been the biggest bane of my probation life from the start, i.e. for decades. Legislation only requires local authorities to house those "in priority need" and the rest scrabble around trying to get what they can, with immense pressure put on the probation officer who has no access to houses and no money to pay for them. If an AP manager asks me again "what have you done about X or Y's move on" once again I swear I will throw the phone across town into their face. Local authorities use risk as a get out clause all the time NOT to house people (who are not priority need), whether it be they are "too risky" or "not risky enough". The single young men who have no family are usually in the most dire straits.

The Probation service whether it be the Trusts or NPS have known about this problem for years. It is by far and away the BIGGEST issue as reported by service users themselves in countless "offender surveys" year after year - they don't advertise the results of this, despite putting immense pressure on us to get near 100% completion rate of that damn survey year after year.

And yet despite this the MoJ wasted vast amounts of money on a "through the gate" service which essentially gets armies of staff filling out the OASYS BCS identifying issues with housing, benefits, lack of ID, lack of bank account, with little time/incentive and certainly no money to actually sort the issues out.

If the MoJ gave that cash to the probation officers/service users to pay for deposits/rent in advance, it would free up SO MUCH time, create far less stress, and lead to outcomes - but nope, for the past 7 years it has preferred the Through the Gate staff to spend their time form filling. I'm disgusted and yet know in my heart of heart the service can’t or won't listen because we have a government that does not think that anyone, let alone someone who lost their housing due to their own offending, should have a right to the basic human right of a place to live."

Police Becoming a 'One Stop Shop'

It's almost certainly a product of advancing years that things that seemed understood and quite straightforward years ago are now an almost complete mystery. Things were so simple, but now aren't. Jobs and role boundaries have changed beyond recognition and as one agency has retreated from areas of work, another has taken it over.

I can still recall being shocked by a phone call many years ago from a police officer regarding a client of mine and their 'supervision' of them. I heard myself saying 'but that's my job' as they explained their job title under the umbrella of Integrated Offender Management. 

Isn't it astonishing that during a period of austerity and substantial cuts in numbers of police officers, the police have been quietly encroaching upon areas of work that most would feel were the legitimate purview of other more appropriate agencies, such as probation. It surely cannot be unconnected that as probation has found itself increasingly side-lined and in chaos, the police have been quietly moving their tanks onto our lawns?

Of particular note is Durham Constabulary who were testing the legal boundaries some time ago with 'supervision' facilities for the injecting of heroin provided by them! Now they are flying the flag for the rehabilitation of offenders as well because, as the Chief Constable puts it, "the current criminal justice sanctions were not effective for dealing with low-level offences such as shoplifting, assault or drug possession." 

It's absolutely extraordinary that as probation is being quietly strangled under the dead hand of centralised bureaucratic control, it's now the police who are able to be flexible, innovative and forward-thinking. No more 'we lock 'em up and you let 'em out'. They are the new liberal-minded social service, the 'iron fist in a velvet glove'. Why don't we just merge with them and have done with it - a 'one stop shop'? We might be better off under the Police and Crime Commissioners than bloody civil servants. This from the Guardian:-

Durham's pioneering police scheme slashes reoffending rates

Reoffending rates have been slashed in a pioneering police scheme in north-east England which experts say could lead to a transformation in how the justice system deals with violent crime.

More than 2,660 offenders who have committed offences such as burglary and assault have taken part in an experiment in which they avoid prosecution if they take part in a rehabilitation programme for issues such as mental health and substance abuse. If they complete the four-month contract with police, they walk away without a criminal conviction. If they do not, they are prosecuted in the traditional way.

The initiative by Durham constabulary is the longest-running and most advanced of its kind in England, with at least five other forces, including Surrey and Devon & Cornwall, considering the introduction of similar schemes. The first results of the trial, seen by the Guardian, found a 15-percentage point drop in reoffending after two years among those who took part in rehabilitation compared with those who did not.

Most of the 519 offenders in the first cohort of the trial had been arrested for violence, theft, drug possession or criminal damage. About half had no previous convictions but others had been arrested as many as 52 times. The results, which are part of a University of Cambridge study to be published in 2022, are the most significant indication to date of the long-term success of “deferred prosecution” programmes in England.

The findings will reopen the debate about whether such initiatives represent “soft justice”, as some critics claim, or are successful in reducing crime and cutting costs. The idea has gained traction with senior police leaders and is to be discussed by the National Police Chiefs Council later this month.

Jo Farrell, the chief constable of Durham constabulary, said the current criminal justice sanctions were not effective for dealing with low-level offences such as shoplifting, assault or drug possession. “What I’m not saying is where people commit serious offences, they won’t feel the full force of the law,” she said. “This isn’t about trying to do things on the cheap or divert people away from court or prison. It’s a cohort of people for whom this cycle will never end unless we do something different.”

Under the Durham programme, called Checkpoint, offenders spend four months with a police supervisor who helps them access support for issues including mental health, to drug or alcohol use, homelessness and communication skills. Of the 2,660 offenders involved in the trial to date, only 166 (6%) have reoffended.

The initiative also involves the victim of the crime, consulting them on the progress of the offender’s rehabilitation, although they do not get the final say on whether the offender is prosecuted. Durham police said only five victims had complained out of the 2,660 offenders who had completed the programme.

Checkpoint costs the force £480,000 a year but an internal estimate suggests that for every 1,000 offenders it saves at least £2m a year in reduced crime. A similar trial in the West Midlands, which ended in 2014, tracked 414 offenders over two years and found that the amount and severity of reoffending by those on deferred prosecutions was lower, or no worse, than those who were prosecuted. That study, by criminologists at Cambridge, has not yet been published.

Prof Lawrence Sherman of the university’s Institute of Criminology said there was mounting evidence against the prosecution of low-level offences such as theft or common assault. “It’s expensive, it rarely results in a formal punishment, victims aren’t satisfied with it. It’s generally a pretty bad way to manage low-level offences which are the highest volume offences,” he said.

Sophie Gregory, criminology course director at Birmingham City University, described the Durham findings as significant and said: “We know that around two-thirds of women and a third of men are reportedly committing crime to fund addictions, so if we can go back to that root problem and help with some tailored support long term it has got to help reduce reoffending.”

The debate about rehabilitation was reignited by the terrorist attacks in London Bridge in November and Streatham this month, both carried out by men who had been recently released after prison sentences for terrorism offences. Boris Johnson also made “law and order” a key part of his 2019 election campaign, promising among other things to prosecute within a week anyone caught with a knife.

But Farrell said such a blanket approach may not always be appropriate. “Within all offences, there’s context. You get bold statements by politicians: ‘Everybody who carries a knife must go to prison.’ Policing is based on discretion – we have a lot of discretion and a lot of autonomy,” she said. “Context is everything and the situation you’re dealing with and their background. Taking a very binary position on things strikes me as a not very intelligent way of dealing with an issue.”

Alex Mayes of the charity Victim Support said the one wish of those affected by crime was for the offender to stop offending. He added: “Where evidence shows offender management schemes to be effective at reducing reoffending, many victims of low-level offences may be open to credible and safe programmes. However, just as in the wider public, justice means different things to different victims of crime. For this reason, where these schemes are used, it is vital that all victims receive explanations as to their use, and that victims’ ongoing feedback is sought in order to inform the process.”

Latest From Napo 198

From Friday's edition of Napo magazine online:-

Probation Announcements

If January is anything to go by 2020 is going to be a significant year for Probation. Following on from a rocky couple of years which saw the collapse of one of the CRCs and the announcement that the CRC contracts would be ended early and that Offender Management would be integrated into the NPS ahead of new contracts being let we have started the year with a damning HMIP report linking staff shortages and dire premises with a lack of quality in Probation practise and lowering morale. Added to these significant issues a series of high profile and very tragic cases have illustrated in a very real and distressing way the ultimate consequences of failings in the system. It was therefore inevitable that we would see some response from the new Government setting out a response to all of these issues.

I must start with the positives. We naturally welcome the steps taken to integrate Offender Management in Wales into HMPPS and although there are understandable issues relating to the rushed nature of the transfer this is a real indicator that the new Government intends to follow through on the commitment made last year to do the same in England which is an important step towards Napo’s stated aim of full reintegration of Probation Services (including interventions and unpaid work which HMPPS currently intend to re-let contracts for against all of our representations and campaigning).

Next we have two announcements made this week on justice policy. First the suggestion from the Home Secretary that those convicted for terror related offences will face tougher sentences and closer supervision including polygraph testing. Alongside this is the promise of additional Probation staff trained to manage terror related cases. Members will have a mixture of views and feelings about polygraph testing, one the one hand recognising it as simply another tool to gather intelligence in managing a case but on the other hand a punitive measure based on theories that some view to be flawed that damages rather than assists the working relationship between Probation staff and their clients. Most will welcome additional staff and training for those working with clients convicted for terror related offending and this is to be welcomed but there is a serious question to ask about the resource required. There is a staffing crisis across Probation and the HMIP report cites over 600 vacancies in NPS for Probation Officers. Members report little access to genuine opportunities for continuing professional development that offers more than the standard mandatory learning. These genuine development opportunities take time and resource which are in desperately short supply at the moment.

In addition we must always question the context of the changes in direction we are asked to adopt. People who commit terror related offences often feel marginalised and excluded and with the recent revelation that many organisations are now considered to be extremist (such as Greenpeace, Unite Against Facism and others) many trade union members will be wondering where the line really is. In order to properly assess and monitor risk and to work in a positive way you need to develop a useful working relationship with your client. Being seen as perpetuating a system which further ostracises and marginalises your client can have the opposite effect to the one you are working for.

Introducing polygraph testing may seem “tough” or “positive action” but in reality the solution to the problem is far more complex. What we all know is needed is greater investment in staffing and staff development with a focus on creating space for quality practice rather than headline grabbing gimmicks.

Next we have the announcement of a change to the automatic release of those serving a determinate sentence of seven years or more for an offence where the sentencing range includes life. In practise this means the most serious violent and sexual offences.

This will only apply to a relatively small number of cases. It “will change the release point for those serving standard determinate sentences of 7 years or more where the maximum sentence is life to the two-thirds point.” And importantly “In 2018, there were over 4,000 Standard Determinate Sentences imposed for sexual /violent offences which carry a maximum penalty of life. There were around 250 Extended Determinate Sentences, and 400 life sentences for such offences.”

The concern is that we may see up-tariffing of sentences for violent and sexual offences on the basis that the sentencer wants to be seen to do the right thing for the victim by giving the sentence that will fit into this category. So instead of maybe 70 to 80 months they will make sure they give 84 months or more to hit this rule change.

Can prisons cope with the additional demand for space? There are serious overcrowding issues already but more longer sentences and those prisoners staying in prison longer will have a huge impact. Apart from the physical space there simply aren’t the prison staff to manage this safely. There’s also the intention expressed in the sentence “The Government will change the release point to two-thirds for certain serious offenders which will allow for a greater period of rehabilitation in prison as they prepare to resettle into the community.” Prison is a place to prepare for rehabilitation and in a small number of cases genuine rehabilitation is achieved but cuts to budgets and staffing mean little proper rehabilitative activity for most prisoners. Rehabilitation is about more than just getting some basic qualifications and preparing for employment, complex underlying issues such as mental health, substance misuse and ingrained attitudes and beliefs need to be addressed as well. Overcrowded prisons without enough staff where people are locked up in a cell for most of the day with little intervention and lack of access to family and other supportive networks destroy any motivation to change.

Then we get to Probation who have to manage the sentence while in prison and make the plans for release. Our staffing crisis and the move to OMiC has caused serious pressure in terms of managing the case in custody so this would only make it worse, putting more pressure on staff working in prison to conjure up rehabilitative activity where it just doesn’t exist. Then the ominous promise “Instead they will be made to spend two-thirds of their sentence in prison, before being subject to strict licence conditions upon release.” This suggests more pressure to impose restrictive licence conditions on release which we all know means more work for Probation who monitor and manage those conditions. HMIP have already evidenced that Probation staff don’t have the time to properly supervise clients due to excessive workloads caused by staff shortages.

These initiatives, added to others recently announced such as 20,000 extra Police Officers and 10,000 extra prison spaces suggest a focus on justice that is leaning towards the punitive and can only increase workloads for Probation staff. Napo will be raising the issues in our engagement with NPS and HMPPS senior leaders and the Minister, to ensure that our voice is heard.

Katie Lomas
Napo Chair

Prison Not the Answer

In the wake of a car-crash day one for the Tory election campaign, I find a modicum of encouragement that the celestial bodies might at last be aligning in terms of a shift in our political landscape. So, continuing with a bit of a theme on here, Narey gets some support when yesterday we were pointed in the direction of this comment piece from November 2016:-      

Prisons cannot be places of rehabilitation

There is a growing crisis in Britain's prisons. 2016 will see a record number of self-inflicted deaths as prisons become increasingly unsafe and violent. It is in this context that the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) last month published A matter of conviction: a blueprint for community based rehabilitations prisons.

At a time when prison’s crisis is increasingly becoming a crisis of legitimacy, the RSA's intervention offers a vision of the prison beyond its immediate crisis. As the report boldly states the RSA's blueprint is about ‘imagining a different future and a new “normal” ... in which the future prison would be a safe and secure environment for staff and prisoners’.

Such a vision, at a time of crisis, suggests that the systemic failure, pain, violence and abuse of the prison is both temporary and resolvable.

Prison failure = Prison Reform

Throughout the RSA report, it is the critique of the contemporary prison that is its strongest point. Prison is clearly failing and the evidence for this failure flows through the report. But how is this evidence of failure utilised? By a belief in the potential of a reformed prison.

For example, the report states that ‘prisons are not healthy places’, before utilising this as evidence to support its aspiration to create ‘the healthier prison’. Underlying this insistence that the answer to prison failure is prison reform is the assumption that those incarcerated need to be in prison.

Prison is a punishment, it is ultimately about the deliberate infliction of pain. The epidemic of self-harm and record levels of self-inflicted deaths being experienced in our prisons is clear evidence that imprisonment is experienced as pain.

For the prison to maintain legitimacy requires that its infliction of pain is seen as necessary and beneficial. Whilst the ideologies of retribution and deterrence routinely contribute to this, they are inadequate at times of crisis. The ideology of rehabilitation tends to be deployed to provide a justification that the pain is being inflicted for the benefit of its recipients.

Alongside many other examples of prison’s failure, the RSA highlights high reoffending rates. This, it argues, represents prison's failure to rehabilitate. To remedy this failure, it proposes that government ‘create a rehabilitation requirement’ and impose it on prisons.

If only it were that simple! From Fenner Brockway’s observation, in the 1920s, that ‘if reform is to become the principal object, the prison system must be scrapped altogether’, to Frances Crook's acknowledgement, in 2016, that ‘the idea that we can create a structure that rehabilitates people is flawed’, reformers have acknowledged that prison cannot rehabilitate.

The report offers no new theory of rehabilitation, or indeed practical proposals for achieving it. Ultimately, all it can offer is a belief in the prison system's ‘potential impact on reducing reoffending’, together with some isolated examples of current initiatives which suggest rehabilitative benefits.

These examples are generally on a small scale and generously resourced. Flowers do grow in the desert, particularly if well-watered, but that is no reason to believe deserts are appropriate places for the cultivation of flowers.

Prison Reform = Prison Legitimacy

What makes A Matter of Conviction particularly depressing is that the RSA is an influential organisation with access to significant resources. It is in a privileged position that allows it to make a difference. By refusing to look outside the criminal justice system, and committing itself so totally to the institution of the prison, its impact is likely to be harmful.

In his foreword, the RSA Chief Executive, Matthew Taylor, talks of the RSA’s ‘commitment to social inclusion’ and the ‘need to address the causes of social problems’. The focus in the report on prisons as the solution, and the refusal to examine who is imprisoned, means this initiative ultimately does exactly the opposite.

Prisons are designed to exclude and stigmatise and are used almost exclusively against the poorest, most marginalised and most socially excluded. The RSA initiative has two potential impacts. Firstly, it could improve the experience of some serving prisoners. Secondly, it will help legitimise the prison as an institution and its targeting of the socially excluded for state inflicted pain.

The history of prison reform does show that, on occasions, it can have an impact on the daily lives of prisoners. However, despite the humanitarian motivation of reformers, these impacts are not always beneficial. As former prisoners George Dendrickson and Frederick Thomas observed in the middle of the twentieth century,

"cruelty and good intentions often go hand in hand. So it is perhaps not very surprising that many of the least tolerable aspects of life in Dartmoor and other English prisons are the result of the godly and humanitarian zeal of past reformers"

Progressive reforms tend to be short-term. Despite often being acknowledged as successes they are inevitably subject to punitive clawback.

For nearly all the ‘flowers in the desert’ cited in the RSA report I could cite similar initiatives from the nineteenth century. The only reforms which were sustained were those that added to prisons’ punitive armoury. Solitary confinement may have been introduced by reformers keen to save the prisoner’s soul in the next life, but it was retained by gaolers who appreciated its capacity to inflict pain on their mind and body in this life.

Look beyond prison
It is the success of reforms in re-establishing the legitimacy of prison that explains their failure to be sustained. As the crisis abates, the reforms are no longer needed and however brightly they may have flowered they are left to die, only to be ‘discovered’ by a new generation of reformers when imprisonment faces another crisis of legitimacy. The crisis, reform, legitimacy, claw back and amnesia cycle continues.

If the RSA could have the imagination to look beyond prison and focus instead on how the community can contribute to the lives of ex-prisoners, it would have the opportunity of creating a lasting legacy. It is not prison that we should be seeking to legitimise but social inclusion and solutions to the causes of social problems. These can be found only outside the criminal justice system. That is where we should be focusing.

Dr JM Moore is Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Newman University, Birmingham

Defining Rehabilitation

With the General Election now officially under way and the outcome pretty much impossible to predict, there's a real prospect of a change in direction on a whole number of fronts, such as our policy regarding prison and probation. Following on from the Narey speech, a reader sought to remind us of this yesterday:-  

 
Making rehabilitation work for ex-prisoners

Prison and probation services have traditionally focused on personal rehabilitation, but this focus cannot resolve problems that are social rather than individual. A new rehabilitation model includes three additional aspects beyond personal rehabilitation – expanding to relations in the wider society.

In 1991, there were 45,000 people locked up in England and Wales. Twenty years later this had soared to 85,000 – and despite some reduction more recently, the prison population remains at historically high levels, hovering at 92,500 for the UK as a whole. Prisons are full up, to the extent that Prisons minister Rory Stewart last year suggested we should have a "massive reduction" in the number of people sent to prison for 12 months or less.

Reducing re-offending is one obvious way of cutting down on the prison population. Fergus McNeill, Professor of Criminology and Social Work and part of the research team at the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research, explores the mechanisms that support or hinder ex-offenders in their rehabilitation back into society. But what are the societal drivers for putting people into prison in the first place?

"Broadly speaking there are two main kinds of responses. We can take a 'retribution-based' approach, denouncing the wrongs people have done or, at the same time, trying to deter them and others from further similar acts. Alternatively, we might prefer a 'reparation-based' emphasis, where the person is invited to repair the harm done by making some contribution to the wellbeing of the victim or the community," says Professor McNeill.

In either case, rehabilitation is key – ultimately aiming to reintegrate the person into the community as a fully restored citizen. However, what rehabilitation actually entails (i.e., how it is defined) is still highly contested.

Professor McNeill has developed a model including four different aspects of rehabilitation that together can support 'desistance' (the process of ending offending) – going beyond rehabilitation for the individual and expanding to relations in the wider society. "These four forms of rehabilitation are inter-dependent, and influenced by social structures and cultural conditions," he points out.

• Personal rehabilitation is focused on developing any aspect of the individual that will equip him or her for the journey to reintegration. This might mean the development of new or existing skills; the strengthening of motivation; the clarification of related beliefs and values; or support for positive shifts in personal identity.
• Judicial rehabilitation is a process of formal, legal 'de-labelling' where the status of the citizen is reinstated. This is a duty that the punishing state owes to those citizens who have settled their debts; it signifies and secures the end of punishment.
• Moral and political rehabilitation is more informal and focuses on the negotiation between citizen, civil society and state – a civic and civil conversation that looks back towards the offence, that explores harm, repair and renegotiation of reciprocities, and that looks forward to reintegration.
• Social rehabilitation concerns the individual's social position and their social identity. It is about their connections and resources, their social capital; the help and welcome that they require along the path from other citizens.

While prison and probation services traditionally have focused on personal rehabilitation, the other three aspects of rehabilitation are also crucial parts of the picture and must be considered as well, argues Professor McNeill. Personal change cannot itself resolve problems that are social.

“If offending breaks relationships and tears at the social fabric, then both the tear and the repair must be relational – between the people directly involved; and between citizen, civil society and state,” he adds. “Criminal justice policymakers and practitioners can't duck these wider issues; it makes no sense to work on only 'one side of the tear'. If we want to build a safer and fairer society, we need to look beyond personal rehabilitation and include the other three forms.”

Prison, Rehabilitation and Reoffending

Despite all the Parliamentary shenanigans distracting us, there's been a lot going on that concerns our probation world, like this from last week reported in the Guardian:-   

Prisoner rehabilitation does not work, says former prisons boss

A former director general of the Prison Service has said rehabilitation of offenders in jail does not work and should be scrapped.

Sir Martin Narey will say in a speech on Tuesday that research to establish a causal link between rehabilitation and reduced reoffending is lacking and short courses cannot fix problems caused by difficult childhoods.

“The things we did to prisoners, the courses we put them on, the involvement of charities, made little or no difference,” he will tell the International Corrections and Prisons Association conference in Buenos Aires.

Instead, the best the prison estate can offer prisoners is an environment where they are treated with “decency and dignity”, he will say. “Decent prisons in which prisoners are respected seem to provide a foundation for prisoner self-growth. Indecent, unsafe prisons allow no such growth and further damage those who have to survive there.”

He will add: “Stop fretting about rehabilitation. Politely discourage those who will urge you to believe that they have a six-week to six-month course which can undo the damage of a lifetime. The next time someone tells you they have a quick scheme which can transform lives – transform is the word of which you should be particularly suspicious – politely explain that life isn’t that simple.”

--oo00oo--

Rob Allen made a speedy response:-

Don't Forget Rehabilitation: Remember It in Everything A Prison Does

Sir Martin Narey’s call for prisons to “Forget Rehabilitation” was no doubt designed to provoke a reaction and in that the former head of the National Offender Management Service has succeeded. Canadian expert Frank Porporino found Narey’s presentation at the conference of the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA) in Buenos Aires saddening and puzzling because as Narey himself admitted he had, as prisons chief in England and Wales, overseen a big expansion of education and psychological programmes designed to help prisoners change their behaviour. The disappointing results of the latter have led Narey to conclude that “the real and moral challenge is to make imprisonment humane”.

Much of what Narey had to say was uncontroversial. Prisons should be clean, orderly and respectful institutions and ensuring decent everyday conditions and treatment should be given a higher priority than they often are. His warnings about the risks of jails descending into brutality and violence were powerfully made. But is he right that humane containment is the best that prison should strive to achieve?

International law makes clear “the penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation”, and while the reality of most prisons worldwide may be far removed from that lofty ideal, that’s no reason to dismiss it. There’s good evidence that education, vocational training and work in prison reduce recidivism and as a recent manual I drafted for the UN recommends, these need to be expanded not forgotten. It would be a disaster if Narey's headline deters the developing countries represented at ICPA from doing so.

Moreover, without a strong emphasis on rehabilitation, how will prisoners in any jurisdiction be able to prove to a Parole Board that they have made efforts to reduce their risks of re-offending? What conclusions will politicians concerned about violent crime draw about how to protect the public? And how will Prison Services be able to attract the optimistic and skilled staff to work with the people in their care?

Other presentations at ICPA have stressed the need for a more humane and hopeful philosophy and practice in prisons - not in opposition to rehabilitation but as the very foundation of it. A public health approach to incarceration in the US state of Oregon has seen dramatic improvements in wellbeing of prisoners and staff. There and in other states, new practice is informed by prisons in Norway where staff are trained not only as guards but as “facilitators for rehabilitation” and mentors. A similar initiative in Pennsylvania is having to overcome the hurdle of regulations prohibiting fraternisation between staff and prisoners. But good relationships between staff and prisoners is increasingly recognised as the key not only to safe prisons but ones where prisoners can use their time positively.

Shadd Maruna, in a magisterial lecture demolishing the false science of static risk assessment tools, encouraged instead an approach which takes a much fuller account of what has happened to prisoners in their lives - which in many cases includes the experience of trauma. This is not just a matter for psychologists and social workers but for everyone working in prison and making decisions about prisoners.

The emerging consensus is that prisons need both to treat prisoners with dignity and respect and to offer them opportunities to come to terms with what they have done and chart a new course for the future. In fact, you can’t have one without the other. As Debbie Kilroy, the Australian activist and former prisoner told the conference, it's only when prisoners are treated as people and not defined by the worst thing they have done, that they ill take up the opportunities to change.

So, while it may be right to forget the false promise that a short psychological course can repair deep seated problems of disadvantage, a rehabilitative culture should remain a central aim for prisons, alongside all that is required to make it a reality.

Rob Allen

We Told You So

As we continue to absorb the findings contained in that damning NAO report from last Friday, it's natural to look back at what was being said at the time when TR was being conjured out of nowhere. It may have been 'fake news' that David Gauke or Rory Stewart recently bemoaned a lack of warning, but we all know there was a veritable cacophony of rock solid argument as to why the whole thing was a very bad idea indeed and doomed to fail disastrously. This from 2013 British Journal of Community Justice Vol. 11(2-3): 83-85

TRANSFORMING REHABILITATION: EVIDENCE, VALUES AND IDEOLOGY 

Fergus McNeill, Professor of Criminology & Social Work, University of Glasgow 

I’m writing this at Heathrow, on my way home from the first World Probation Congress in London on 8-10 October 2013. For me, it was a bittersweet event. Sweet to learn about and to celebrate what probation is and can be – at its best; bitter to be doing that at the very moment that the UK Government dismantles a world-leading, globally-renowned, award-winning public service with such a proud history. 

On the first day of the conference - but at a separate event organised by User Voice - I was asked what my fears are about Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), specifically from a research-informed or evidence-based perspective. In one sense, that’s a difficult question to answer. Since Transforming Rehabilitation is really about disestablishing probation, it is quite hard to advance a strictly ‘evidence-based’ response. It is impossible to experiment (in the strict sense) with criminal justice institutional arrangements, so there is no ‘evidence-based’ organisational structure for probation. That said, there are many arguments that can be made about which structures might best facilitate or impede desistance. And that’s where my fears arise. 

Firstly, TR seems to me to be based on several fundamental misconceptions about risk. Many informed commentators have noted the dangers of creating an organisational structure that reifies risk classifications; that assumes people can be easily or sensibly classified for any period of time as high, medium or low risk. They have also pointed out - repeatedly - that most ‘serious further offences’ by people under supervision are carried out by those classified as low or medium risk - not necessarily because the assessment and classification was wrong, but often because risk is dynamic and situational; it is always changing.

My concern with risk is a slightly different one. Ever since NOMS has elected to pursue a policy that resources should follow risk, it has slipped into the assumption that people who present a high risk of harm require the most intensive supervision. In one sense they do – public safety demands that they be closely monitored. But the ‘risk principle’ in the ‘what works’ research said something quite different; i.e. that people who presented a high risk of reoffending - whatever the likely gravity of their crimes - required (and benefited most from) intensive interventions. The reason was obvious. People who offend persistently tend to have very complex personal and social problems and it takes considerable time and skill to address those problems in a way that reduces risk. Yet TR seems to me to be built on the assumption that people who represent a low or medium risk of harm (but who often represent a high risk of reoffending) don’t need skilled and intensive support – that their supervision can be safely delegated to less experienced, less skilled and less qualified supervisors or supporters. While desistance research certainly does suggest a potentially important role for peer mentors, other volunteers, friends and family in supporting change, it also makes abundantly clear that for people who have offended persistently (but not necessarily seriously) desistance is a complex and uncertain process - a long and winding road that requires skilled navigation. TR diminishes the likelihood of skilled navigation (for reasons I’ll elaborate further below) at the same time as making the route between services more complex and elaborate. 

My second major fear also flows directly from research evidence. Skilled navigators can’t enable and support change by themselves. First and foremost they need to be able to engage with the people doing the changing. That sounds simple, but it is no small task to develop relationships of trust with people whose relationships with others – often especially with authority figures – have often been, at worst, abusive and traumatic and, at best, inconsistent and difficult. In those circumstances, the process of building trust is hard enough for those with shared experience or with professional skills. It is made easier where legitimacy is conferred or more often earned by demonstrating the sorts of human values so important to probation practice (and to user voice organisations). My fear is that marketisation may be poisonous in this inter-personal process. A pecuniary contract preoccupied with achieving targets that generate financial rewards is not a recipe for trust and engagement; it is a recipe for service users feeling and being objectified as a potential income source – or, worse, as a waste of time and effort. 

My third fear is also related to the logic of the market, but in a different way. I alluded above to TR’s creation of a more complex set of arrangements for service provision and delivery. This refers not just to the potential movements of service users between the rump National Probation Service (as and when fluctuating risk requires it) and the contractors/consortia but also to the complexities of the partnerships involved in delivery within and across regions – and of their relationships with related services (in health, education, employment, housing, etc.). In short, this seems like a recipe for disruption and fragmentation, when desistance research points to the necessity of coordination, consistency and continuity in supporting change. 

To make matters worse, competition creates new problems of intellectual property and commercial interest that risk the creation of a whole new set of silos; not this time the familiar silos of public sector bodies failing to cooperate (a perennial problem, I admit, but not one solved in any way by TR), but rather the silos of commercial competitors looking for an edge. That raises questions about the future of research-informed and evidence-based practice. First and foremost, private companies want to increase profits and shareholder returns and to grow their market share. If, as some of them argue, it is innovation and quality (and not just efficiency/cost reduction) that will drive profitability, then innovation and quality will be highly prized, and carefully guarded. Market logic demands that they will not be disposed to sharing their best ideas. An optimistic (or naïve) fan of the free market might say that this means that all will be driven to improve in a frenzied quest for quality and competitive advantage, but that means that they all have to waste time and (public) money individually inventing innovations instead of cooperating. Or maybe the qualitatively best contractor ends up as a monopoly provider, in which case market logic itself suggests that the end of competition will ensure that complacency sets in and quality atrophies. 

An alternative and more likely outcome is that as soon as private contractors realise that there are no easy fixes or cheap ways of securing PbR outcomes (except perhaps by resort to the familiar problem of ‘gaming’), companies or consortia will have to make their money in the more familiar fashion - by recruiting inexperienced and unskilled staff and by overburdening them so as to drive down costs (compare the recent inspection report on HMP Oakwood). In this approach, they make money not on unpredictable outcomes but on reliable volume of business; which leads of course to an even swifter abandonment of quality. It also creates an incentive to ‘grow the market’; that is, to lobby for increases in the numbers of people subject to supervision, just as some private prison providers in the USA encouraged mass incarceration. 

However, my ultimate fear is even more fundamental. I fear that privatisation and marketisation will corrupt criminal justice. I don’t mean corruption in the obvious sense of people criminally carving up a quasi-market through bribes or other more subtle inducements or frauds (though that is an inevitable and serious risk in any and every market). Rather, my fear is that by transforming rehabilitation from being a moral good into a market good, something central to justice will be lost. Doing justice is not a task that we should contract out because it is a civic duty that citizens owe to one another. When we seek to sell off our mutual obligations to one another, we weaken the moral bonds between us, because we treat as merely instrumental things that are in fact constitutive of ‘the good society’. Rehabilitation is one such good; it is a duty that citizens owe to one another. Those that offend owe it to those they have offended. Those that punish also owe it to those that they have punished. Is it really desirable that we seek to meet these obligations merely by paying others to do it for us? My view is that rehabilitation is best thought of as being everyone’s concern and no-one’s business. Transforming Rehabilitation risks turning it into some people’s business and no-one’s concern.

Fergus McNeill

A Good News Story

Although this from Scotland's Herald on Sunday is a particularly good example of crass 'journalism' that simply regurgitates press releases - and then not very well - it is very much a good news story and long overdue:-  

First ever drug rehabilitation village opens its doors

Scotland’s first ever long-term “drug rehabilitation village” opens its doors today. The River Garden Auchincruive project, near Ayr, is a groundbreaking residential project to help those recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. Run by charity Independence from Drugs and Alcohol Scotland (IFDAS), the programme is inspired by a number of radical rehab programmes from around the world. It will initially provide accommodation, training and support for up to 40 former addicts who will live there for up to three years.

Director of Development at IFDAS, Mark Bitel said the three year programme was unlike any other type of service currently available in the UK. The 48-acre site acts as a residential training and social enterprise development where the community will grow food to supply an onsite shop and café, and run a bakery. The programme will be free while residents are volunteering - expected to be for an average 15-month period - but they will pay for their accommodation once they are employed by the centre.

Mr Bitel added: "We aim to demonstrate that there is a different approach with good outcomes for individuals who complete their programmes, their families, communities and, ultimately, the wider society."

Scotland currently has among the worst drug and alcohol problems in Europe, with 867 drug-related deaths reported in 2016 -- double the amount reported in 2015. The average rehab programme in Scotland lasts three months. Although 97 per cent of people leaving residential drug treatment programmes are clean, about 80 per cent have relapsed within a month.

--oo00oo--

Had the 'journalist' at the Herald bothered to dig a bit further, they would have discovered this:-  

Description

River Garden will be a residential training and social enterprise development centre for people in the early stages of recovery from drug and/or alcohol addiction modelled on the three most successful and transformative self-help organisations for people in recovery across the globe: San Patrignano (Italy), Basta (Sweden) and Delancey Street (USA), which have been producing successful results helping people into long-term recovery, reintegrating into employment and mainstream society (70%-80%). Love and solidarity, boundaries, and training and employment for social enterprise activities We have been inspired by these successes to set up a recovery community in Scotland that supports people to live a drug and alcohol-free life. River Garden will be based on the same principles of abstinence, trust, firm boundaries, mutual support, social enterprise, respect for life, and responsibility. Participants will receive training and social support in a range of social enterprise activities to create a visitor destination using the existing refurbished gardens, and establishing a café, bakery, garden nursery, and fresh food for sale and processing, alongside other craft industries on site, and eventually expanding our business activities to the wider community.

Our extensive research has helped us to create a model that is culturally appropriate for the UK. Our aim is that River Garden will serve as a prototype which will be a transformational model for improved outcomes for people with drug and/or alcohol addictions. It is radical and different from any other type of service currently available to this group of people in the UK. We aim to demonstrate that there is a different approach with good outcomes for individuals who complete their programmes, their families, communities and ultimately the wider society. Initially, River Garden will support 30-40 individuals at any one time, but our strategic intention is to use the learning to replicate and set up other recovery communities in the UK to give people whose lives have been blighted with drug and alcohol addictions a real route out of their dependence and the opportunity to build a meaningful drug and alcohol-free life for themselves, with associated benefits to their families, communities and wider society.

Although abstinence is a requirement for entry, we will work with applicants and their treatment providers to begin the admissions process while they are reducing any substitute prescribing, so that there is a seamless transition from treatment to River Garden, minimising the chances of relapse between completion of treatment and becoming a volunteer trainee. For the past 2 years we have been in a process of learning about the admissions process by assisting people from Scotland in need of the type of support that IFDAS will offer to access the San Patrignano community in Italy. We have undertaken more than 20 assessments and to date have helped 3 people from Scotland (two male and one female) to gain places in San Patrignano and supported them to travel to Italy. This has been a useful learning process that has informed our own assessment methodology. This has included involving family members in the admissions process. We have secured planning permission for our centre and the purchase of the land will complete at the end of September 2017. We hope to begin preparation for our first 10 residents for admission in the Spring of 2018.

With an estimated 59,500 dependent drug users, Scotland has one of the worst drug problems anywhere in Europe. In total, 867 drug-related deaths were registered in Scotland in 2016. This was the largest number ever recorded, 23% more than in 2015, and double since 2005. Meanwhile liver disease now accounts for one in fifty of all Scottish deaths, and alcohol-related deaths in Scotland have increased by 100% since 1994 and are now officially the highest in Europe (1,265 alcohol-related deaths in 2016, up 10% on the previous year).

--oo00oo--

For those readers who've been around from the early days, they might recall we covered this topic here on Saturday, 7 May 2011:- 

Food for Thought

I don't normally do tv cookery programmes, but somehow found myself watching a new series called 'Two Greedy Italians' on BBC1 last Wednesday. It's the latest offering of that genre where to be frank the cooking is very secondary to the characters, the stories and the fabulous landscape. After some 45 minutes, I found myself being gently seduced by the scenery, the banter between the two main characters, the classy classic car and then suddenly when least expecting it - bham - a smack in the face and work! The viewer suddenly becomes aware that our two characters are not visiting just any old vineyard and winery, but rather we have entered the utterly surreal world of drug rehabilitation, Italian style.

The San Patrignano project near Rimini is truely amazing in terms of scale, aspiration and concept. A massive 1,000 bed therapeutic residential community, funded entirely by charitable giving and the sale of some of the most mouth watering food and wine you could ever hope to sample. Throughout my entire career I have bemoaned the lack of residential drug rehabilitation beds and instead our reliance on community-based methadone prescribing. This one-size-fits-all approach simply doesn't work and is so narrow and unsophisticated in concept.

Well here in stark contrast we have an absolutely fabulous example of how the whole person can be treated in a truly holistic manner and helped to achieve their full potential as human beings irrespective of their backgrounds and in a drug free environment. Not a hint of methadone anywhere, the residents are asked to sign up to a determination to work towards a life without drugs. Quite clearly many residents have significant criminal backgrounds in addition to addictions and emotional problems, but seemingly benefit from quite lengthy stays measured in years rather than months. And who couldn't benefit from a lengthy stay in such beautiful surroundings living on fine food and wine?

Until I saw this, I had been pretty impressed with the Clink Restaurant experiment at HMP High Down, but this Italian project is something else and I would urge anyone vaguely interested in the mostly depressing subject of drug addiction to have a look at episode one which I gather will remain on i-player until the end of May. As you watch, just absorb the fantastic attention to the design detailing of the whole facility and ask yourself if it looks like a drug rehab to you? Having recently been on holiday to Italy, I have to say that their flair and skill in design is something to behold and should put us all to shame back here. This programme shows that good Italian design encompasses more than just the fabric though. A real lift to the spirit!

Pick of the Week 49

Lazy blogging but still worth a read. The comments above describe probation as a bad place to work. Worst comment award goes to “I have been in probation for 24 years”. So many are stuck in probation and need to get out of this sunken place! The consensus is that probation is not a profession, the pay is poor and the conditions abysmal. The methods Probation uses to recruit and train are flawed, and credible ongoing development is nil.

In my opinion, the current trend of probation box-tickers are mostly 23 year old females fresh out of university. Most will not be competent to have an opinion on justice, rehabilitation and the lives of others. With 15-18 months training and a probation diploma I understand why some will spend time clarifying they're not stating fact, and that what they're about to say is very subjective. I understand why they hide behind phrases like “my manager said”, “MAPPA said”, and “the risk assessment said”.

Many will leave after 2 years to better careers, a few will be enticed into probation management as ‘yes men’. The rest will join the current probation workforce whom have gained the skills and experience to have an opinion but are no longer effective as they’ve been stuck in a worsening dead-end profession “for 24 years”.

The end is nigh for probation and Humpty Dumpty won’t be put back together again. OMiC spells the end for NPS probation officers. The moment the MoJ is ordered to stop bailing out CRC’s will be the end for CRC probation officers.

*****
Certainly one of the comments resonates... well, more than one... there is, I feel, something about the culture of working for the Probation service that engenders a belief that your skills do not transfer. I feel stuck! I still feel a certain value to the job I do but that is what it is now. A job. I work hard, long hours and if I felt I could work elsewhere, I think I would go. That is a scary proposition though and whilst I read here of people having "escaped", I can't see a way out!

*****
Stick your head above the parapet. Talk to people in allied organisations.Do a CV and think about the training you have done in its broadest sense.Training before TR will have value to other organisations.Think about the alleyways you have gone down in your current role. What areas are you seen the 'To Go To' Person? Safeguarding? Community links? Learning Disability? Look at what the OU and your local colleges have to offer. Stick your hand in your pocket and be prepared to invest in yourself. It is not easy but can be done. After 35 plus years I got out into another job, taking a pay cut and grade reduction, but it was worth it because I took control. That is the key.

*****
An easy trap to fall into. Probation management devalues its workers and cause them to believe they are worthless. Probation isn’t structured to develop its workers and their ambitions. Historically workers were led to believe that promotion was only possible after many years service. The old school boys club was at work and promotees were hand picked for services rendered or subservience. The rest were left to rot in the frontline and encouraged to believe probation was the best they could do. This is obviously bullshit and it’s quite easy to get better paid jobs elsewhere. Probation skills are transferable and many organisations welcome former probation officers who come with strong education and work experience.

*****
Most trainees I know are uni leavers who joined probation with the intention of leaving on being qualified two years. A handful of others intend to qualify then temp in the CRC. Nobody wants to stay in probation long term anymore for all the reasons above and more. There’s plenty more jobs out there.

*****
Hmmm. "The Devolution Agenda". And a chicken and egg debate about which should come first: improvement work or devolution. Somewhere in MoJ PR department, an operative is chewing her expensive pencil and doodling "Rehabilitation: Revolution to Devolution", and when the soundbite is polished, it will be a policy.

*****
Devolving will make sod all improvement to anything if they same sorry shower stay in charge. Especially if the service is not reunified. Civil Service, Commercial owners, and craven managers.

*****
Big fan of Dame Glenys, without her team's probation inspections I and others would have been just grumpy malcontents and dismissed as such. As ever her ability to remain distant from the fray is impressive. However, I did like her joke about research which evidences that inspections can drive forward immature markets. That made me chuckle.

*****
HMIP inspections have done nothing to improve or change the mess this government made of probation. Dame Glenys may as well stick to inspecting farms; plenty fences to sit on there!

*****
I'm a fan, Dame G and team have done a professional job within their remit and I dare say given political pressures with some courage and yes, diplomacy. I think the message has landed, must do better! The government will decide the model for Probation ultimately. I would caution against trying to mature the market in Rehabilitation, rather invest in public services and collaborative pragmatism between public, private and voluntary sectors.

*****
Everywhere you look in the CJS you see the word "rehabilitation" popping up everywhere. Police, prisons, probation, and all sorts of other agencies push the word. I used to think I understood what it meant, but I'm not sure anymore. It's almost become just a buzz word to be used in a sales pitch or newspaper article and seems to have different meanings depending on the context it's being used in. Maybe there needs to be a conversation about what the definition of "rehabilitation" really means. It seems to me that it no longer has anything to do with where the person ends up and their ability to lead a normal life, but all about completing the process and steps someone has put in place for them. The process seems to define rehabilitation rather then the end result. It's a bit like doing the washing with no soap powder, you've achieved doing your washing, but your cloths are still dirty at the end of the process. I think "rehabilitation" is a very over used and a very misunderstood word in today's CJS.

*****
As ever, makes great observations. This is a sentence from a local report of sentencing. Clearly there is NO understanding of the meaning of 'rehabilitation'. In addition to a specified period of suspended sentence the judge said "... X must also complete a group work course, a three-month night-time curfew and rehabilitation." Whether they were the judge's *actual* words or the reporter's interpretation is both unclear & irrelevant, it's further evidence that so few people know or care about probation.

*****
How can privatised public services be devolved to local councils? The contracts are agreed, signed and held by central government. Local councils will have no influence on the terms of contracts or how they're delivered. The only thing councils can do is raise council tax to pay for the services, and not know exactly what they're paying for because everything is protected by corporate confidentiality.

*****
Doesn’t sound positive for probation in London. Reading between the lines of this “whole-system approach to offender management”; Victims services will no longer be the responsibility of probation. Thanks to Worboys and Crozier! Offenders 18-25 will be supervised by the Youth Offending Service instead of probation. Privatisation of probation services will continue, incorporating both CRC and NPS. Serco, G4S & Co are set to receive a huge tagging contract. Ker-ching for Mr Mayors’ coffers. No word from Napo and Unison as usual.

*****
'It will review probation services, amid criticism of under-performing Community Rehabilitation Companies.' This blog will surely ask of privatised Probation, part of the problem or part of the solution? Police, Mental Health services, Drug Treatment services, Courts, Communities, Social Services, Health Services, Local Authorities etc all expected to work together so that privatised Probation can turn a profit? Get real! Payment by results, really? So let's imagine everyone in the group effort is tasked to deliver and turn a profit. It gets so blindingly stupid it is hard to imagine the set of chumps that dreamt up privatising Probation services. Aaaargh!

*****
It's the same model the good old USA operate, and it's just another way of outsourcing.
Each devolved authority has total freedom to do what ever as long as they abide by a "broad" understanding of when "federal" intervention is required. As local councils are now becoming evermore responsible for finding ways to fund their services and they keep hiking council taxes to pay for things like social care, libraries and parks, it won't be long before (just like the good old USA model) offenders on probation will have to pay the private companies.

*****
A few points from a broader perspective:
1. Victim services should never have been part of the probation service in the first place (this was a result of empire building in the 90's ) and believe it or not it is just not America where victim services are separate from Probation, Canada  New Zealand and most of the rest of the world are if you care to look.
2. If you are 18 to 25 and in London you may be now about to get a better service given the funding for YOT. You may not but you are probably not going to get a worse service.
3. Whilst it could be the start of charging it could also be the start of the demise of CRC they only remember have 4 years to run and a whole bunch of clients will now go plus If you are a PPO in a CRC there may now be an escape to YOT teams.

*****
This is a fascinating turn. 18-25 group going to YOTs has been kicking around a while. But they choose a time when local authorities have never been so strapped for cash to formally float the idea. 25 year olds attending the same office as 12 year olds to report? Not sure about that! I essentially agree with services being run locally but is this really the best way to it? Particularly given the separation of the service? As always the devil will be in the detail. I just hope it is properly planned and piloted first but I’m not holding my breath.

*****
I'm wondering how the youth offending teams are feeling about absorbing the 18 to 25 year olds. Apart from being a very problematic group they're hugely expensive too. The Homelessness Reduction Act comes into force next month, and between the lack of benefits available to those aged under 25 and the enormous cost of London rents, greatly increased for emergency or supported accommodation, the budget needs must be eye watering. The 18 to 25s must also include a significant proportion of those involved in gang culture, and London has a significant problem gang culture. The research needed to keep certain elements apart will be a huge drain on resources, particularly when you're working with younger offenders who may not yet be identified as being involved with gangs but may in some way be linked by circumstance, family, friends etc.

Are there legal or moral issues to think about when someone being supervised by the youth offending team is imprisoned and enters the adult custody estate because they're over 21? I know there's been much talk about placing 18 to 21s or 18 to 25s within the young offending programme, but I think talk is all there's been. If I worked in the youth offending team in London I'd have a lot of questions to ask, and I'd be pretty apprehensive too.

*****
I'm quite confused. Most Probation clients are under 26. Desistance studies tell us that the rate of offending drops off dramatically after this age. But if these cases go to YOS what does that leave for the CRCs?

*****
Obviously more going on behind closed doors and being kept quiet. The biggest complaint by CRCs is they didn't get the numbers they thought they would. To be told that those numbers are to be chronically reduced by losing everyone under the age of 26 and there's no threat of legal action or announcements of withdrawing from their contract suggests to me they've been assured they will suffer no financial loss.

*****
Jesus, what will MOJ come up with next? If it hadn't done so much damage to careers and society this would be amusing. MOJ are so desperate to find some sort of solution to this mess that they will try anything. What will be next I wonder? Perhaps base future delivery models using proven therapeutic methods known to to aid desistance, and we could have standards to ensure consistency of delivery. We could call it 'What Works' and the 'Offender Management Model'.

*****
I'm sure the same correlation will occur in adult crime figures. Cuts to mental health organisations and charities for example amongst the many contributing factors. Governments never seem to learn that cuts actually save money because they never do.

*****
Very true. What does save money is investment. Ironically. If I, a bear of little brain can see this, why can’t all the clever people in charge? Short term measures, knee jerk reactions, sound bites is what we have to contend with. And these don’t get the baby bathed.

*****
I think the idea that cuts elsewhere have an impact on rates of offending questions the nonsense of payment by results for CRCs to reduce reoffending. The best can feasibly have the worst results and the worst the best depending on how the wind blows locally. We need National Policy that is interpreted to the needs of local communities, that directs services to work together. The best of these collaborations are where mutual interests are identified. These interests are to my mind glaringly obvious. Although I protest privatised Probation services, the Private sector has a huge role to play as do the voluntary sector. It has been staggering to see the extent to which TR rather than enhancing these arrangements has eroded and destroyed them in what I consider to be a self interested, naive and frankly reckless way. The list of cooperative endeavours are numerous and waiting for a government catalyst and some up front investment to realise them.

*****
This I think is only the beginning of a long line of legal challenges. It's right to describe the case as a mess from the start, but I feel it's been resolved in a very disturbing way. Not least because Worboys was never charged or convicted for anything against one of the appellants taking the case against him in the capacity of a victim. I have no doubt that she was one of Warboys many victims that didn't see their day in court and feels cheated by the justice system, but I personally feel very uncomfortable with the idea that someone that you've never been charged with an offence against can bring a legal challenge to prevent your release under the banner of a victim. That just opens up a legal quagmire.

Another uncomfortable aspect is what the Parole Board was told that they should consider "the Parole Board should have taken into account "critical evidence" of the "wider allegations" against Worboys." I think the Parole Board have a duty to consider a persons offending in a wider context than just the things they're charged with, but it's not the Parole Board's duty to determine guilt. That should, and always be the function of the courts. Move away from that and justice moves to a dangerous place. If anything Worboys should have been charged with further offences, and the police and prosecution services being the ones to deal with the fall out that would have brought.

I have much sympathy with Nick Hardwick, I think he's an honest, committed and honourable person, and his demise is really come about by politicians pandering to media pressure. I don't care about Worboys, he can stay locked up, but I do care about the justice system and how some decisions it makes can have very damaging consequences in unintended ways. I'm saddened Hardwick has been forced out, and saddened too that the decision taken today by the courts seems more to do with media-led hysteria, and not the rule of law.

*****
It must be clear that most prolific offenders convictions are very likely to be less than the number of offences they have committed and, therefore, the number of victims. The case surely has ramifications throughout the system given the precedent set. Scrutiny of Parole Board decisions in respect of cases such as Worboys is one possibility, belt and braces approach?

*****
Well if the Parole Board had listened to the Probation Officer at the hearing who told them “do not release” Nick wouldn’t be joining the unemployment queue. The Parole Board were never independent and only released Worboys because of government pressure to release IPP prisoners - oh how that has backfired! I’m sure it won’t be all doom and gloom for Nick, after all his cosying-up to David Gauke and Dame Glenys Stacey he’ll probably be handed a job with the MoJ or HMIP and made a fellow of the Probation Institute.

*****
According to the news at one, Hardwick has been scapegoated by Gauke. Apparently the MoJ failed to include important information relevant to Worboys case in the dossier given to the Parole Board. Gauke is also being criticised over rule 25, the blanket ban on disclosing information on decisions they reach. Rule 25 is something the MoJ imposed, not the Parole Board. Gauke makes a statement in the house on the matter shortly.

*****
If there's a mechanism for the MOJ to add material to a parole dossier, I don't know what it is. Typically documents are requested by the Parole Board or we can ask for them.

*****
Typical bloody politicians to look around and find a scapegoat for their own failures. I only met Nick Hardwick once at HMP Bronzefield when he led the team doing an inspection in 2010. I talked to him about whether there was anything the inspectors could do to assist a mentally ill prisoner who was being bullied by one of the officers. He said he couldn't take up the case of individual prisoners but when I got back to the wing, I discovered that he had immediately left education, gone over to the wing and had a half hour long conversation with the prisoner followed by a conversation with the staff on duty on the wing that day which included the officer conducting the bullying, although Mr Hardwick was very careful not to point fingers. The officer never again bullied that particular prisoner. 

I met him again in 2013 at Downview when he and his team conducted a surprise inspection. On both occasions I was thoroughly impressed by his professionalism, care and standards. He made an excellent head of Parole bringing the same qualities to that role as he did as Chief Inspector of Prisons. Gauke clearly looked around for a scapegoat and Hardwick was the most obvious choice (after all how often do you see a Minister willingly fall on his or her sword?). Granted Gauke wasn't in charge when Worboys was convicted and has no culpability for anything that has happened since, but Gauke should not have sacked Nick Hardwick because that's exactly what he did in practice.

*****
If Nick Hardwick has to resign as head of the Parole Board then Sonia Crozier should resign as head of the Probation Service. If they have to resign then so should David Gauke. All “weak and pathetic”.

*****
Simple solution (?) to cases like Worboys'... give Parole Board a budget to access independent specialists, e.g. psychiatrists, psychologists. Their 3rd party objective views can be weighed against the inevitable subjectivity of supervising staff, prison staff, programmes' staff, reports commissioned by prisoner's legal team.

Hmm, wonder who was REALLY behind the cutting of Nick Hardwick's throat today? Independent, Jan 2016: "Nick Hardwick: Prisons inspector steps down with attack on Chris Grayling for trying to influence his work... he revealed that the former Justice Secretary Chris Grayling had “robustly” tried to influence his reports despite his supposed independence from the Government." Grayling never forgets...

*****
How many Govt heads would open an interview like this (from jan 2016):

Prison UK: Thank you for agreeing to speak to me and to the readers of this blog about your work as Chief Inspector.

Nick H: I think yours is one of the best blogs – and the most insightful – about prison life. It’s something I’ve turned to for information and perspectives. I know a lot of people read it, so I thought it would be a good way of communicating.

No wonder the Tory mafia wanted him out of the picture.

*****
It would help if the obligatory MoJ/SoS representative actually attended the Hearings!

*****
Pissed off that people are saying the MOJ failed to add significant documents to the dossier; no, the parole panel failed to apply forensic scrutiny and ask for that documentation. MOJ doesn't contribute to parole processes, probation officers do though, despite not being legally qualified, in a quasi judicial setting and often in opposition to experienced legal professionals. If the MOJ want to start providing solicitors routinely in parole hearings, that'd be fine too.

*****
If the documentation missing from the dossier was significant enough that the Parole Board failed in its forensic scrutiny by not requesting it, shouldn't it have been important enough to be included in the dossier by those that compiled it? Can't ask for something if you don't know it exists.

*****
Who do you think compiles a dossier? It's prison admin on 17k salaries, then a governor signs it off. Probation staff might provide reports but aren't responsible for the overall contents. What it contains is routinely shaped by the Parole Board itself, who would have known of the existence of all the documentation described as absent from the dossier in today's judgment.

*****
You’re talking out of your backside. The responsibility of probation is to provide a parole report not an entire dossier. The parole dossier responsibility is with the 1. prison parole clerk who compiles it, 2. Parole Board case manager and 3. Public Protection & Pre-release sections in the MoJ. The latter two make decisions and directions about what information they want, and who from.

Read the judgment. The Parole Board were sloppy and released against recommendations of most professionals involved. “The Parole Board ought to have carried out, or have instigated the carrying out of, further inquiry”. The dossier included details of 80+ victims”. Of the 12 Worboys was convicted of he minimised his offending and recently admitted guilt. The Parole Board did not have police and CPS documents on the index offences to challenge Worboys with. Nor sentencing comments. They did have a probation pre-sentence report, a psychiatric report identifying him as a high, continuing and significant risk. 

The Parole report by probation and the psychological report did not recommend release. These would have detailed Worboys offending. In 2017 new psychological assessments recommended release, one arranged by Worboys legal team - no surprise. Both probation officer and prison psychologist objected to these recommendations and stated he should not be released. The judgment summary is clear details of Worboys 80+ victims were contained in these reports and objections. The Parole Board could not say they were unaware. From the detail they were aware and should not have granted release. Would it have been different if the Parole Board hadn’t been under pressure to release IPP prisoners?

The MoJ Public Protection & Pre release sections should have scrutinised the release decision, and the Justice Secretary could have stepped in any time. Instead it took a news campaign and a crowdfunded prosecution by victims to stop him being released. The buck should stop at the door of David Gauke, Justice Secretary. This is why Nick Hardwick has been scapegoated to take the heat off the MoJ and Gauke.

*****
PPCS? never seen them do anything constructive to contribute to a parole dossier without direction from Parole Board. Never seen evidence of them giving critical consideration to the content of a dossier at all.

*****
Let’s not forget Worboys legal team are the ones that argued for his release and arranged for a forensic psychologist to recommend his release. It is a sign of our corrupt system that a solicitor was able to financially profit by presenting Worboys lies, and paid handsomely for securing his release to rape more women. The Parole Board should have listened to probation and other professionals that said he should not be released. That panel should be investigated. The MoJ and Gauke should have stepped in to determine why the Parole Board did not listen to probation and other professionals. The MoJ and Gauke should be investigated. I’m waiting for NPS Sonia Crozier to tell Gauke to stop blaming “HM Prison and Probation Service” for the dossier, but she’ll probably apologise instead.

*****
Nick Hardwick on BBC Breakfast - faces grilling from tv presenter, handles it with dignity, explains his position, accepts his mistakes, expresses his concerns - it's still not enough for the baying mainstream media. The REAL issues will be lost in the white noise surrounding Worboys. Police, CPS, MoJ failures will all be erased as the iconic headline of Hardwick's sacrifice is pushed through letterboxes, TVs and over the internet. Can't wait to see which favoured lickspittle lackey is chosen to replace him. Spurr? Or maybe Gove's personal favourite Dame Glenys could squeeze the Parole Board in between HMIP & Cowsheds?

*****
Still don't see which arm of the MOJ is being hung out to dry here. Probation prepare reports but don't shape the dossier. PPCS don't, in my experience, have a meaningful understanding on the contents of the dossier, or what might be missing from it, either.

*****
Probation do not have responsibility for the dossier, the content and documents requested is the responsibility of the MoJ Public Protection Caseworker and the Parole Board Caseworker. They request Probation provide a Parole Report not the entire dossier. This request is via the Prison Parole Clerk who collates the dossier.

*****
With respect, I don't think Gauke is being thick. He's being sly and trying to shift blame and responsibility to where it doesn't belong. Having read above what he stated in Parliament, perhaps probation chiefs or even NAPO should push for clarification on his comments and why he's suggesting the compilation of the dossier is the sole responsibility of the NPS.

*****
Probation don't shape dossiers, I've said so repeatedly, but neither have I ever had any indication that the PPCS have so much as read the reports or hold any insight into the intricacies of a case other than that directed by the Parole Board. Will the outcome of this be that PPCS gains a greater remit in some instances, or that our responsibilities swell further?

*****
The dossier is the responsibility of PPCS and the Parole caseworker. On many occasions I've been involved in and observed requests by both for information and documentation. Probation responsibility is simply to provide a parole report and other REQUESTED documents. Probation are merely witnesses at the hearing. The Prison Parole Clerk simply collates the documents sent according to request sent by PPCS and the Parole Caseworker. The NPS and Napo need to make a public statement about this quickly, but won’t because NPS directors are in Gauke’s pocket and the Napo GS doesn’t understand probation work.

*****
Try having a conversation with a PPCS caseworker about the contents of a dossier. Other than hitting the required timescale s, they're at best disinterested and more often than not clueless.

*****
Totally agree. PPCS refer everything back to the disinterested and clueless Parole Board Caseworker, who refer everything over to the disinterested and clueless Parole Board Case Manager, who refer everything to the Parole Board Panel Chair who is usually disinterested and clueless too. BUT, the dossier is still the responsibility of the PPCS and the Parole Board. It is not the responsibility of the Probation Service. Probation Officers are witnesses at Parole Hearings to attend and answer question about their Parole Assessment Reports and Risk Assessments and nothing more, not to provide the dossier, not to arrange the logistics, not to make tea, nada.

*****
The Parole Board panel was reckless in making its decision as many are, but Hardwick’s is not the only head that should be on the block. The position of the entire panel should be considered “untenable”. Gauke had the authority to be represented at the hearing and to intervene into the decision but chose not to. The dossier was the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board, not the probation service. Gauke must stop attempting to lay blame on the probation officers who did their job, who are not responsible for the parole dossier and who opposed release. What say NPS Sonia Crozier about this, and if she apologises again then her position is “untenable” too?

If Hardwick’s position was “untenable” then so is Gauke’s. The right to practice of the forensic psychologist that recommended release against the advice of all other professionals, paid for by Worboys legal team, should be considered “untenable”. Worboys legal team abuse of legal processes should also be scrutinised for bring the legal profession further into disrepute.

Bottom line, we have broken justice system wherein a Parole Board achieved ‘success’ by ignoring all professional advice, and solicitors achieved ‘success’ by duping said Parole Board into believing the lies of a serial rapist, and made a decision to release Worboys onto the streets of London to rape again. Is this not considered “untenable”?

*****
Worboys should not be released yet but at the same time shouldn’t have to suffer because of the system failure. How hard will it be for him to work towards rehabilitation and release when he is now facing the wrath of every IPP and Parole prisoner that now won't be released.

*****
All my experience of working in the Criminal Justice System tells me that when it works successfully victims, offenders, the public, the different professionals all have a sense that the right thing has been done. Some of them may not like it, but they acknowledge it is just and ordered. Gauke has topped a series of failures with a decision which fails to do the right thing on every measure. Weak, political decision: all it indicates is that Gauke has neither ability nor intent to put his department into order. I hope he doesn't get away with this.

*****
Hardwick is leaving out there was a Parole Board Post Tariff Review in 2015. Full documents were available and release was not granted. The 2017 Parole Board Panel would have had access to this decision. The recent Judgment states there was an indication of Worboys convictions and 80+ victims in the dossier and the Panel could have sought further information at any time. This is not just about not having all the information, it is about not properly analysing what they had and making no attempt to obtain what was further required.

*****
Gauke will claim he has taken responsibility, "On the dossier that was provided by the National Probation Service—and, therefore, my Department—for the hearing that occurred on 8 November last year," But really he is scapegoating the NPS, and saying he is "forced" to accept some responsibility but only because the NPS are under his ward. Hardwick has taken the right stance, there were cock ups made, some by the Parole Board, and some by various other involved parties, lets accept that and sort the problems out. Everyone else however seems to be trying to pass the hot potato. It's interesting that Hardwick is the only one that seems to be commanding any respect, yet he's the one who's had to take the biggest fall.

*****
Yes Gauke is scapegoating both the Parole Board and the National Probation Service. Does this mean the head of the NPS is to resign too? The truth is the dossier was not provided by or the responsibility of the National Probation Service—and, therefore, Gauke’s own Department the MoJ Public Protection Casework Section—is responsible for the dossier. At any point in the process Gauke had the authority to intervene in the decision being made to ensure public protection and the interests of justice.

*****
So Ian Lawrence said nothing about Hardwick and Gauke wrongly blaming probation for the dossier? And nothing about wrongly blaming probation for victims not being informed when this wasn’t the responsibility of probation? In fact our Ian just endorsed the scapegoating of probation by stating “Privatising probation, ... , I’m not surprised crucial information was missing“. Utterly useless!

*****
Lawrence puts his finger on the real problem. If you spend years destroying the justice system, dismantling long established structures, dividing agencies and outsourcing critical parts to third parties, then poor communication and serious mistakes are going to be inevitable.

*****
I think not and the judgment does not mention Ian’s view. This was nothing to do with privatisation or poor communication. Probation did it’s job, prisons and it’s psychologist did it’s job, and as Hartley-Brewer called it; “Bizarrely, the Parole Board members seemed to be the only people who didn’t know his history. But also the fact that they seemed to take as gospel truth the fact he had converted to religion – I don’t see how that’s relevant – and that he was a changed man. It seems a level of utter incompetence and incredulity.”

*****
Ian Lawrence may as well have blamed Australian ball tampering and poisoning of Russian spies on probation privatisation too!

*****
The judgment recommends more serving and retired judges on Parole Board panels. Maybe this will stop the shady practices of solicitors and barristers at parole hearings. I’ve seen nothing in the media or from the legal profession about Worboys legal representatives presenting his lies and arguing for his release. Where did they find that psychologist who recommended release?

*****
Given all the finger pointing because of the lack of information presented on Worboys probable offending, and Nick Hardwick being effectively sacked, this report says that the SoSs representative at Worboys hearing opposed release on the basis of what he was 'convicted' of, and didn't feel the need to elaborate on his possible further offences. Who's at fault now Mr.MGauk?

*****
An MOJ spokesman said: "The department's representatives at the hearing made clear that they had analysed the offences of which (Worboys) had been convicted and opposed release on the basis that he remained high risk. "They did not feel the need to analyse any other offending in order to reach this firm conclusion." Those are the accusations against the Parole Board which forced the resignation of Nick Hardwick. If the MoJ are now saying they are guilty of the same error, then who's going to resign from that department?

*****
I suspect “the departments representatives” means the probation service. This is misleading the truth because the probation officer who submitted a report and attended the parole hearing as a witness is not responsible for the Parole Board's failure. What we want to know is why the other “departments representatives” the Ministry of Justice Public Protection Casework Section which is responsible for the dossier failed to include the correct information, and why the “departments” head, the Justice Secretary David Gauke and David Lidington before him failed to intervene.

*****
I don't think the blog piece title 'The Wrong Guy Resigns' hits the mark. We work in imperfect systems, with contradictory guidance and flawed science but do our best in light of this. I think the Judges got the balance right in their summation. My view based on what I have read is that no one needed to resign, the opportunity to reconsider and reflect on Parole decisions is the challenge in light of what happened. Public grandstanding by Politicians is a sign of immature politics and serves no one well. I would respect Gauke if he reconsidered Hardwick's resignation and worked with him to bring about considered changes to the Parole system, they appear to agree fundamentally on much.

*****
What a shower of comments half wrong at that. I read the blog on the basis I thought it was declining in reader feedback but here we have a little lift because of a simple resignation. The way this reads is simple If Hardwick had anything about himself he would said FO to Gawky boy and said sack or shut it! Instead he helped the Gawky boy and fell on a sword not a murmur of protest. In my view at least he asked for it! No fight no respect.

*****
I disagree. Bowling into the committee ranting and raving blaming everyone else aka Phillip Green should earn zero respect in my view. Unfortunately behaviour like that amongst the elite means they get weasel out of what’s coming their way. Hardwick took responsibility as managers often don’t and resigned. An honourable man in my view. Unfortunately in this day and age viewed as weakness to some.

*****
The judgment came to the right conclusion. The Parole Board panel made a number of shoddy errors. I’ve known shoddy PB release decisions before, but never against recommendations of probation officers, prison psychologists and MAPPA, and never on a high profile case. Hardwick knew Gauke planned to point the finger in one direction so had no choice but to resign. Hardwick resigning meant Gauke didn’t have to for not intervening, it’s simple as that. Gauke has not come out unscathed and now known as an incompetent Justice Secretary. It won’t be forgotten he refused to take responsibility and threw everyone else under the bus, including the probation service.

Final thoughts: Use of non-convictions in Parole hearings will remain a grey area. There’re structural problems of solicitors representing dangerous clients at parole hearings as if were innocent defendants in courts of law. The probation officer involved should be commended for a tight Parole report, recommendation and risk assessment.

*****
I too found it astounding that Worboys still a Cat A prisoner should have been even considered for parole so soon after tariff expiry given what he was convicted of. I've known people on IPP's who had to go through decreasing levels of secure prisons to open conditions to "prove" themselves before being considered for release and they had lesser tariffs than Worboys for much less heinous offences. But then again the Baby P mother was released from Holloway before her tariff expired and there have been a few other similar cases, some of which have ended up being recalled so probably shouldn't have been released. I know one woman with learning difficulties who had an 8 month IPP tariff who spent 8 years inside before she got released and who wasn't really a danger to anyone had she received the help she should have been getting in the first place. Yet Worboys does a few months over tariff and bingo up for release! Mind you it's the same sort of headscratcher as sentencing where people committing say fraud for roughly the same amount can get wildly differing sentences.

*****
Secret Barrister appears to be suggesting that all the professionals were recommending release. It is my understanding that the OM, OS and prison psychologist were not and it was only Worboys' psychologists who were recommending release. Another point which I am surprised no one has commented on before is the matter of Worboys being denied a move to open conditions in August 2017. I may be wrong on this one but I regularly review the categorisation status on Lifer and IPP prisoners. These cases never progress to open conditions as HMPPS doesn't have the power to grant such a move. Even though it is something of a pointless exercise this happens to lifers and IPPs on an annual basis. I suspect the same happened in Worboys' case.

*****
Secret Barrister has said "Yes, his release was opposed by his offender managers but supported by psychologists instructed by his solicitors and by NOMS. My piece is not clear about that - I’ll amend. Thanks."

*****
A great deal is being made of Worboys being a Cat A prisoner. It is unlikely due to his notoriety and nature of his crimes that he will (for his own safety) be allowed out of the High Security Estate and will therefore, if release is ever granted again, go straight from Cat A to an AP.

*****
I think there's a distinction to be made about being housed within the category A prison estate and actually being a Category A prisoner. There's a big difference, both in legal terms and security arrangements. There's a couple of things the Warboys case has made me think about, and they haven't really been spoken about.  I think firstly moving away from the legal issues, there was a general feeling that he just hadn't served long enough for the offences he committed. I think that was the primary driver for legal action and the legal arguments were easy to find to present a case for JR.

Secondly, his release challenged many assumptions that people hold about the CJS that may not be actually correct. The CPS assumed the number of cases he was charged with would be sufficient to put him away for a far longer period then 10 years, that too I believe was an assumption by the police, and indeed alluded to by police to at least one victim. I think too that when the public and press hear a sentence being imposed of IPP they assume the person receiving that will be in prison for far longer then the minimum period set by the judge.

I don't know the answer, but was there an appeal by the state or prosecution or any of the victims when Worboys was sentenced about the leniency of the minimum term imposed? Perhaps there's assumptions being made in legal quarters there if no appeal was made? People (including myself) think they know things about the CJS, and they perhaps do know much, but the Warboys case has challenged what people really know, what's fact what do we assume, what protocols and processes within the CJS that aren't found in legal text do we rely on and expect, perhaps sometimes wrongly expect, to keep the wheels turning?

*****
Less than 1% of those released by the Parole Board go on to commit further serious offences. You wouldn't think the risk was so low given the agitation at the proposed release of Worboys. Worboy's notoriety puts him in the court of public opinion. The judicial review was not without its irrational aspects, though when judges are in a fix to justify something they will always cite exceptional factors. - and you can see the judicial review as another episode in a long series of incompetence which started with failures to investigate by the police and failures to prosecute by the CPS.

Worboys will be kept in prison as further punishment for the offences that were never put before the sentencing court. I would have no confidence in risk assessment which is a blend of groupthink and pseudo science. As for the Parole Board considering sub-conviction information and police intelligence, Mappas have been doing this for aeon's in reaching risk assessments. And such information can be withheld from the Mappa subject whose human rights are secondary to protection of the public considerations.

If the statistics showed that 99% of those released on parole went on to commit serious offences, what chance of anyone being released? But the reverse is true and was true before before the shiny risk assessment tools arrived. Risk assessment is a tool for justifying incarceration whereas experience shows that it's safe to release in 99% of cases. And it's irrational to think we can ensure safety 100%.

*****
Recalls cover a multitude of sins, real and imagined. The 1% relates to the actual commission of a serious sexual or violent offence.

*****
And the extent to which recall prevents SFOs will never be known precisely, but fair to say the 1% would be higher if not for preemptive action. High recall rates are, in my opinion, at least partly the price paid for release of IPPs who aren't yet ready to be back in the community.

*****
Pre-emption like pre-crime reminds me of Minority Report. The 1% statistic has endured for decades – it predates OASys and it predates the shift to aggressive recall policies by probation over the past 15 years or so. Risk assessment has become an industry of illusions and there is no evidence that it beats experienced professional judgment, common-sense and a belief that people mature and change.

*****
I enjoy reading these Branch Reports but wonder if other areas report to their members like this. It would be extremely helpful to have this exposure and accountability of the management everywhere else.

*****
Well done to Dino and the rest of the SSW Branch Executive for holding the line on behalf of its Members and continuing to hold WLA to account and be that ever present 'thorn' in the flesh. As a lesser mortal I myself (for a number of reasons) bailed out of the disaster that is DDC about 15 months ago.I take my hat off to those who have stuck it out, and continue to question and challenge the employers on their employment practices. I fear as a country we are rapidly heading back to 'master -servant working conditions.

*****
"I'm sure probation employers of all descriptions must sleep much easier at night". Sadly your words are 'on the money', Jim. We only have to look at the ease with which the CRC owners breezed through a very comfortable session before the JSC recently, throwing statements of self-congratulation around like confetti & enjoying the free airtime for their PR machine. I admit to being more than a little frustrated with Bob Neill for letting them get away with that, especially in the light of the damning PAC report that was published not many hours later. I despair! But to those probation staff in the South West I send my best wishes & moral support. It doesn't pay the bills & it doesn't stop the bullying - but hopefully the idea that there are people in support of your fight helps a little bit?

*****
No April fooling here. Barristers taking action is old news in scheme of things. Interesting to look at Probation in Ireland (North & South) and Scotland and how the role of Probation Officer remains positively aligned to Social Work base and qualification remains Social Work with Criminal Justice specialist orientation. [In England] I am wondering if Probation works annexation from Social Work leaves it somewhat stranded, isolated and maybe vulnerable? Note I am DipPS not CQSW and so no axe to grind rather enquiring.

*****
I have a CQSW and after many years in the Probation Service, Registration is not for the feint-hearted and you have to take personal responsibility. If your manager wants you to do something you professionally disagree with, then be prepared to defend your client, reputation and registration. Not sure some of the recently-recruited 'yes' people in the Probation Service are up to that. Just saying and putting on my tin hat at the same time.