A Controversial Suggestion

It's now well over a year since I started writing in earnest about probation and I'm conscious that a degree of repetition may be creeping in. I guess this is an occupational hazard and maybe there is only so much to be said about what is in essence quite a simple concept. 

This post from 22nd October on the Justice of the Peace Blog has encouraged a return to the perrenial problem faced by all courts, that of the chronic alcohol or drug-addicted homeless offender.   

"They are generally 45 year old males who look to be at death’s door. They appear at the magistrates` court with NFA….no fixed abode……on shoplifting or public disorder offences and they invariably have a long record of previous. There is no sentencing outcome which is appropriate. They are often given a notional fine and immediately released the fine deemed having been paid by their having been in custody overnight."

The piece goes on to quote a case reported by 'This is Derbyshire' and concerning a serial homeless shoplifter whose only intention is to get back to prison as soon as possible because he simply cannot cope in the outside world. Reading the piece you can sense that the frustration and despair is clearly shared by the journalist:- 


"WHAT a dilemma for a judge or magistrates – what should they do with a crook whose only intent is being sent back to prison? Darren Newsome has eventually got his wish. The serial shoplifter had hoped for this outcome back in July, only to be disappointed, when he appeared in court charged with theft.
Undeterred, he went straight back to shoplifting in August, September and October – and now Recorder Christopher Donnellan has locked him up for 40 weeks.

"Thank you very much, sir," responded Newsome.

He makes no secret of the attraction of prison – he gets regular meals and a roof over his head without having to worry about how he is going to pay for that every day. But what alternative does a judge have in such circumstances? He can hardly leave him free to carry on in his merry, criminal way. Traders have to be protected."

"We have to recognise that some people just cannot cope with life outside the prison environment.
It is sad and they deserve some sympathy for that – but our law-makers need to explore the options for helping them minimise their reliance on this costly last resort."

Well of course this problem has been around for a very long time and in fact was the driving force behind the establishment of the probation service way back in 1907. It was recognised that a criminal justice system needed a welfare arm in order to try and deal with such problem cases, and eventually the early Christian pioneers became professionally qualified social workers. What was never properly understood however was the probation officers dual role encompassing welfare with public protection. Politicians of both parties subsequently decided that there was political advantage to be had in dropping the welfare role of the probation service completely, substituting it for punishment instead.

Now regular readers will be aware that there are still some officers around that are experienced and practiced in the old ways and find it very hard indeed to forget their welfare roots. Cases like the one described above are very familiar indeed to such officers and it is quite obvious that the problem has not gone away - it's just that the State seemingly has absolutely no method of dealing with it any more. The frustration of sentencers is palpable.
What on earth can be done?

I have made this suggestion before, but I think it's worth repeating. Make a Community Order with supervision. I say this not just because it will in all probability infuriate probation staff at all levels, I say it because I feel it is right and humane. We used to handle these cases and we can re-learn the skills required. Orders can be made on people who are homeless and permission of the probation service is not required. There is no other agency able to do this work and therefore I would remind sentencers that it is within their power to sentence how they see fit and it's up to the probation service to respond.    

Got to be Worth a Try

Any mention of RSA gets me thinking about school days and typing exams for the girls while us blokes were doing stuff like GCE 'O' level Technical Drawing. I've never really given much thought to the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce since, until today that is. Now with the strap line 'Ideas and actions for a 21st century enlightenment'  this august body, somewhat surprisingly, wants to build a prison?

I think most of us are familiar with the notion of think tanks writing reports and coming up with bright ideas as to how society can be improved. But here we have something altogether different - not just some novel ideas for improving the rehabilitative nature of prisons, but a plan to actually build or acquire one and operate it along very particular and different lines.

As far as I can see the hypothesis is one centred on full-time, social enterprise employment for all prisoners, with remuneration at not less than the statutory minimum wage. The prison would be located alongside what is termed a 'transition park' which would be home to many and varied social enterprises offering a range of employment opportunities, together with some temporary housing. The aim would be to involve prisoners in the management of the whole enterprise and incentivize them to remain offence free. It's being likened to a 'John Lewis' type shared-ownership ideal.

Having got up to speed with the RSA's track record with regard to initiatives like The Clink prison training kitchen and restaurant, together with drug projects and school curriculum development, they strike me as being a body who's time may well have come. They seem to me to be peculiarly well-placed to be able to offer something significantly better than just more private prisons run by mega corporations as envisaged by Ken Clarke. This is a story worth following and should give us all cause for hope. There is an article in today's Guardian.      

The Good Old Days

Once again I'm grateful for readers contributions, like this from yesterday by Don:-

"I fear that you might also be looking back through rose tinted specs. Certainly I saw a lot of pretty poor practice alongside the good stuff. There were more ‘characters’ in the old days, but they sometimes took idiosyncratic to a level which had to be seen to be believed."

"Although I essentially became a probation officer to try to help people, I always thought our over-riding duty was to the court, so I used to breach people who didn’t comply with their sentences. I had colleagues in the ‘good old days’ who either didn’t know how to do a breach, or couldn’t be bothered. I remember one colleague who proudly told me she had never breached a client. It didn’t surprise me that she had a lot of no shows!"

This is a fair accusation and those that know me would no doubt say I do indeed have a tendency to look back with fond memories. I recognise much of what you say, and I think it has to be addressed in order to help make sense of the situation we now find ourselves in. I'm a firm believer in history being able to inform the present and help guide us through the future.

The situation in the 1980's was very different. Probation was an alternative to a sentence and the client had to give their agreement. We were indeed officers of the Court, but charged with the responsibility of assisting the client live a crime-free life during the period that the Court had placed trust in them. In essence all that was required of the client was to remain offence free and merely report as required. I think it's true that seen in this light, breach action was only felt appropriate in exceptional circumstances, not least because probation was not a punishment as it is today of course.

Pretty much the officer had complete freedom to determine the level and frequency of reporting. I would say that this enabled time and effort to be put into those risky or difficult cases, rather than the ones that were doing ok, and for whom probation was working it's magic. Some people did not have to report that often. After all, probation literally means a period of time during which a person can demonstrate that they can be trusted to change their behaviour. The job was invented because it was recognised that some people would need help in achieving this aim, hence we were charged with 'advising assisting and befriending.' 

We had less serious cases in those days and our work was unashamedly welfare-orientated. We were the social work arm of the criminal justice system and thus we all had to be fully qualified social workers. 

In an age before managerialism was invented and when officers felt attracted to a job that gave the opportunity of 'helping people', it did indeed encourage characters to flourish. Of course there was bad practice, but I would argue this was more than compensated for by the very encouragement of that idiosyncratic behaviour. We are all human and this is a person-centred occupation - or should be. The good old days gave officers the freedom to be themselves and innovate. As in all jobs there was bad, but at the same time there were many exceptional and brilliant officers that inspired us newer recruits. 

Those of us who have been around for a long time can recall amazing initiatives and ground-breaking work undertaken by colleagues. Personally I could name at least three current well-established charities started by humble PO's in my small locality alone. This will have been replicated everywhere. We did research, we ran projects, we joined committees. Above all we got involved because we had passion and wanted to do things. Management, such as it was, encouraged this and facilitated innovation.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. I believe we have lost more than has been gained by recent and not-so-recent changes. Newer colleagues sadly never knew the freedoms we had and of course the process has been very painful for us old-timers. The need for a return to the kind of ethos I've described could not be greater in my view and I intend to highlight this in coming posts. 

Thanks for commenting!         

Pause for Thought

I have previously voiced what I think every blogger knows. Writing and getting things off your chest can be hugely enjoyable and therapeutic, but all of us need to know it's being read. Sending all this stuff out into the ether is all very well, but it's great when it triggers a response and every now and then a comment really makes you stop and think. Yesterday is a case in point and I hope the author will not mind me quoting their words:-

"As a fellow probation officer who shares your passion and genuine interest in those we work with I fully agree with your sentiment about supervision being a magical/mysterious process. That said, I am one of those who voluntarily moved away from the 'magic' of direct client contact into a management role - for what I thought were the right reasons! - To try to influence management structures/cultures for the good of the clients since our effectiveness in working with them happens to achieve what the paymasters require 'reduction in offending'."

"Surprisingly, what I've found is that in espousing the highest standards and expectations from others (staff) in the supervision of those we work with, I've often met with resistance and resentment from some officers who clearly don't share my passion for working with and engaging the client. I therefore sometimes (more often than I would wish) find myself in a strange place as a manager having to convince,influence and sometimes insist that clients are respected and treated fairly. As a manager/practitioner I really struggle with the fact that not all probation employees view working with clients as a 'privilege' and fully respect their position."

This is quite a reality check. It serves to confirm a truth that I've been trying to ignore - namely that the thoughts, ideas and concepts that I'm spending so much time recording here are possibly nothing more than an illusion. Perhaps they are indeed just a description of a bye-gone golden age of probation, penned by one of an ever-diminishing bunch of 'old-style' officers, and have no relevance for today's practitioners. You see I've noticed this change in attitude towards clients myself and been shocked by it.

There was a time when it would have been an absolute 'given' about clients being respected and treated fairly. Now we have a manager saying they have to 'insist' on it. No wonder the Prisoners Families Voices website is routinely full of negative comments regarding probation. I used to believe it was possibly the result of a move towards the use of more unqualified Probation Service's Officers, but I know full well that's not the complete answer. There has indeed been a monumental cultural shift within the probation service and it's not good. Us 'old-timers' are not going to be around for much longer and the Service is inexorably losing it's collective memory. To be honest there needs to be some sign that the message just might still have relevance before the memory fades completely.

I'll end with a final quote from the manager:-

"I suppose I want to illustrate that there are probably many people like me (in management positions) who went in voluntarily because they thought they could make a difference and were disillusioned by 'managerialism'. I am hanging on in there trying to make a difference often considering reverting back to practice because my energies seemed better spent then! What keeps me going is the passion I have for the work of probation, of effecting change at whatever level and my fundamental belief in fairness."


Amen!        




  

What Does a Probation Officer Do? 4

Supervise

Hopefully all your hard work in garnering as much information as possible about the client, making a sound assessment and convincing the court of the soundness of the reasoning will ultimately lead to the making of an order. In an ideal world, having done all the donkey work, formed the basis for establishing a good working relationship and become the expert on the case, you should become the supervising officer. This scenario certainly describes my experience, understanding and philosophy. Indeed it could be said to be just plain obvious and commonsense, but sadly for all sorts of reasons no longer holds true in anything other than the most serious of cases. 

Anyway, supervision is what a probation officer is expected to do whether the case is inherited or seen through from the beginning. Supposedly the process was made easier by the introduction of OASys which handily incorporated a supervision plan section within it's all-embracing remit. It sounds a useful and helpful facility, but believe me it isn't and in my experience only serves to frustrate the author in being able to get on and complete the report by forcing often arbitrary selections from a 'pick and mix' menu.  Unfortunately the cunningly-designed software will not allow it's omission. I'll be honest and say I've never expended much time and effort on this section, given that it never seems capable of being able to express in plain English what I really think the aims of supervision should be. 

Unfortunately the word 'supervision' has become somewhat of a large stick with which to beat the Probation Service. In the midst of widespread ignorance about what we do, politicians over recent years have encouraged the public to develop completely unrealistic expectations of our power and remit in relation to 'supervising' clients. Of course the media has played its part in encouraging the notion that if someone is being 'supervised' we must know what they are doing 24/7. As a consequence, any further offending must, by definition, be a failure on our part. Why? Because they're on supervision and we should have prevented it. Ludicrous, grossly unfair, never has been the case and never can be of course, when typically a client might only be seen once a week for an hour max. 

That being said, supervision as I understand it remains at the core of what probation is all about. The key to it having an effect or not is almost entirely down to the quality of the relationship between officer and client. This alone should ensure that appointments are kept without the constant threat of having to impose sanctions or ultimate breach action. If the reporting session is felt to be useful and constructive by the client, attendance in my experience will not be a great problem. That is not to say that sessions are always necessarily easy and friendly. Difficult things have to be discussed and attitudes and behaviour challenged, but this is all down to the skill of the officer in deciding how and when to approach such matters. The client must feel they can trust you and that you're being fair with them, even when telling them something they do not want to hear. It's not about friendship, but rather mutual respect.

That small word 'supervision' can embrace just about any and every facet of human experience. The session can go in any direction and take a variety of forms. They can be incredibly difficult and emotional or easy and chatty. Each time in effect it's a blank sheet of paper on which the officer can write, or attempt to write, anything. Sometimes it's about listening, or counselling,  advising or sympathising. Sometimes challenging, interrogating, checking, or admonishing. But the aim is always the same, to encourage and support positive changes. 

Without doubt it's the most interesting bit of the job and I've never understood why some officers voluntarily move away from it, say into management. I can say it's still what makes this a brilliant vocation and an utter privilege to be given the opportunity of sharing other peoples lives. It's a process that can and does change lives. It's the true essence of probation's magical, but mysterious process.   

On the Run

The other night I found myself watching an episode of ITV's new investigative reporting programme 'Exposure' on i-player. Entitled 'On the Run' it was about the number of people who are subject to arrest warrants at any given time, either as a result of skipping bail, absconding from prison or disappearing whilst on licence.

I'll be honest and say I approached this self-imposed task with some trepidation because I'm not sure there's a huge story here, but actually ended up being quite enthused. Of course the vast majority are eventually brought to justice by being arrested for further offences and identified by DNA. But I think, quite unintentionally, the producers of this programme have just invented a whole new twist on a very familiar TV genre. The hypothesis of the programme was that there are countless thousands of dangerous people out there, the subject of unexecuted warrants and therefore escaping justice. Freedom of Information requests flushed out some seemingly alarming figures, but the star of the show, a former detective turned reporter, decided to illustrate the problem by trying to hunt down three fugitives from justice on camera.

We learned that in order to try and evade justice, two had jumped bail and left the country and a third had simply gone to ground having decided that the terms of his licence were too onerous. There was some half-hearted attempt at name changes, and cheekily two fugitives were continuing to openly use Facebook, with one taunting the police. I found it equally informative and hilarious that concerted efforts to snare them by means of 'honey traps' proved mightily difficult given their lackadaisical attitude to life, but the process was easily as enthralling as many of the now tired-looking police chase programmes we are so familiar with. 

So there we have it. A whole new idea for a show. There is an endless pool of gripping TV out there to be tapped into and it will be doing a useful public service at the same time. A sort of cross between 'Crimewatch', 'Rogue Traders' and 'Police, Camera, Action.' But with the police stretched and unable to put a great deal of time into trying to execute all the warrants outstanding at any given time, why not go a little further and follow the North American model by putting a bounty on their head? Another example of the big society - the public can monitor live security cctv via the internet, so could they be induced to get a little more actively involved I wonder?     

A Fine Mess and No Mistake

It came as no great surprise when Ken Clarke announced last week the government's intention to abolish the hugely damaging and ill-thought out IPP sentence introduced by Tony Blair. It was all part of that government's 'tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime' agenda designed to curry favour with the voters and has had the result of stuffing our prisons with upwards of an additional 7,000 or so extra 'lifers.'

Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences are indeterminate sentences and so are indeed akin to a life sentence because release only comes when someone is deemed safe to release by the Parole Board. Sadly however, that's where the similarity ends. Unlike most other kinds of life sentence, the typical 'tariff' or earliest date before release will be considered is normally very short and averages about 3 years. This makes IPP prisoners a very unusual and difficult group for the system to deal with. It could be said they are neither fish nor fowl - not 'proper' lifers, which the prison service is well-geared up to deal with - but actually medium to short term prisoners by any other name. But we are now several years down the line since their introduction and vast numbers of IPP prisoners are languishing in prison well over their tariff dates. 

Even before the last government lost the election, concern was growing in relation to the huge and growing problem IPP was becoming. Never intended to be used in that many instances, it has nevertheless proved hugely popular with Judges who add to the total on a very regular basis. Unfortunately very little thought was ever given as to how this group would be dealt with within the prison system.

In order to assist the Parole Board in reaching a conclusion regarding risk, various accredited courses have to be undertaken that are designed to address issues such as violence, sexual offending, thinking skills, drugs and alcohol. These courses do not run in all prisons and places are somewhat limited. Added to this is the fact that the Parole Board has become increasingly risk-averse in recent years, no doubt partly in response to negative public opinion and political pressure as a result of some notorious cases. Unhappily this has coincided with cultural and professional changes within the Probation Service, who are the people charged with advising the Parole Board regarding release. I have written on many occasions regarding the unhelpful effect of OASys in only highlighting negative aspects of an offenders situation, thus leading typically to over-cautious or negative recommendations for release.

All this of course has proved the perfect recipe for a massive and growing problem. One might say another fine mess the politicians have got us into. And to be honest it's not exactly clear how Ken Clarke intends to get us out of it with his mix of further 'mandatory' life sentences and determinate sentences. It seems some IPP sentences will be converted to life sentences, but the criteria and rationale has yet to be spelt out.

Meanwhile, here we have an experienced commentator, Mr Raymond Peytors of TheOpinionSite.Org who clearly has a problem with probation:-

 "It looks now as if Mr. Clarke has been forced to abandon the idea of a formalised test and means that probation officers will be allowed to go on getting things hopelessly wrong and to continue to introduce their own bias and prejudice into release procedures."


"Mr. Clarke has also not made it clear as to who will determine whether or not an IPP prisoner has his sentence converted to a determinate sentence or, if the case is serious enough, a mandatory life sentence. One may presume that this procedure would be carried out by the Parole Board, no doubt with all possible interference from the Probation Service who are already fearful that their overbearing and unjust influence over release decisions may be under attack."

"We can expect too a howl of anguish from all those involved with any form of public protection and whose jobs and considerable income rely on maintaining the myth that everyone convicted of certain types of offences must be “dangerous” and incapable of change."

I'm not sure it's worth dignifying such comments with a response, but merely leave readers to form their own opinion.

  

Community or Custody?

According to their website, "Make Justice Work is a campaign which aims to boost public support for a change in how Britain deals with minor offenders." In order to further this aim they've had a panel of 'the great and the good' conducting an enquiry over the last year or so.

Chaired by Daily Telegraph journalist Peter Osborne, not particularly known for being a bleeding heart liberal, it had the commendable aim of trying to inject some sense into that tired old political game of reducing all argument about sentencing to being either soft or tough on crime.

I've written on this topic myself a number of times and in particular highlighted how disastrous it has been to allow politicians to use criminal justice policy as a political football over recent years. For too long policy has been dictated by pandering to public opinion in the hope of gaining some short-term political advantage. The Probation Service has been one major casualty of this absurd and uninformed meddling and blame for the mess we now find ourself in should be placed firmly at the politicians door.

When first announced, I must admit I did not feel it was a particularly good omen that it was not felt appropriate to include a panel member with extensive probation experience. Now that the final report has been published, sadly I feel somewhat vindicated in this view, having had the opportunity of absorbing the analysis and conclusions. In a sense I don't think the report has come up with anything remotely surprising in saying that community sentences would be preferable to custody for many offenders. But what I do find startling is some of the analysis.

The panel visited four projects, each working in a particular field; Intensive Supervision for 18-25 year old men; women; drug and alcohol and mental health diversion. Clearly the Intensive Supervision scheme 'did what it said on the tin' and involved electronic tagging and what is described as an out of hours 'community outreach' service. It lasted from between 12 and 24 months and occupied offenders five days a week. Now this is just the sort of onerous community sentence that would be likely to get support from the likes of the right-wing press and it's clear the panel were mightily impressed.

However the report did identify one small problem that will not come as any great surprise to seasoned probation officers. I love this bit:-

"The panel were concerned to hear that the tough nature of these orders can sometimes lead to unintended consequences. Offenders have sometimes been known to breach the terms of their sentences so that they are sent to prison instead. Providers of effective community sentences need to find ways to work with offenders to understand the order and see it as an opportunity to reform."

Who would have thought that then? The sentence did indeed prove extremely onerous for some participants: so much so that some were either breached or just opted for custody instead. It's all very well designing an intensive punishment as an alternative to custody, but if the balance is tipped too far towards stick with not enough carrot content, the aim becomes self-defeating.

Many a time I have discussed with clients at PSR stage, often in custody, the relative merits of various sentences and for significant numbers their problems are so numerous and seemingly so intractable, that a period in prison is seen as a blessed relief and often allows release with a relatively 'clean slate.' The panel seem to have completely missed the point that this issue is absolutely key to the success or not of intensive supervision schemes. 

In relation to offenders with drug or alcohol problems, the panel fails completely to address whether current drug treatment models are working and just concerns itself with lamenting that alcohol treatment is very much the poor relation. I am mystified by these two statements:-

"Diversion from custody to residential drug treatment produces a lifetime cost saving to society of approximately £200,000 per offender."

"£980 million would have been saved if those offenders given custodial sentence of twelve months or less in 2007 had instead been diverted to residential drug treatment."

Clearly the panel are not aware that 'residential drug treatment' is a facility akin to hens teeth in terms of availability. I suspect they might mean 'community' drug treatment. But how can you get the terminology wrong in a supposed high-powered report like this? Residential drug treatment, ie in a purpose-built facility, would be an enormous step forward for certain people with long-standing drug problems. But it simply isn't available nowadays, due to the cost of course. Pretty much all that is on offer is methadone while a person continues to live in the same often drug-riddled community whence they developed their dependency in the first place. Or they're homeless of course.

In the section about diversion from custody of persons suffering from mental health problems, there is no mention at all of learning disability or those suffering emotional distress or from psychological problems. Instead they seem to put great store on the abilities of early mental health assessments - no doubt by Community Psychiatric Nurses or equivalent - being able to  obviate the need for 'expensive and time-consuming' psychiatric reports. Indeed they trumpet this as a significant improvement and cost-saving measure.

Sadly my experience tells me that what is proposed is unlikely to be adequate and encouraging less specialist medical reports, ultimately counter-productive. If anything I believe there is a greater need for expert medical opinion in far more cases because of the failings of the National Health Service generally. I have always been amazed that it is often only at court stage that long-established mental health, learning disability and psychological problems can be properly diagnosed, but only when expert reports are commissioned. It's a disgrace, but a situation that this report seems to want to compound on the grounds of cost and expediency. 

I cannot over-emphasise the benefit to society - not to mention the individual - that can accrue just from obtaining a definitive diagnosis that would give insight into a persons offending and map out a suitable treatment plan. This cannot be done 'on the cheap' and requires the skill and expertise of a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist, not a CPN. Once again we seem to have a report that is completely unable to differentiate between the disciplines of psychiatry and psychology and the appropriate role boundaries of CPN's. 

In short I found this report disappointing. It reaffirmed much of the blindingly obvious, came up with nothing new, but in the process managed to miss some key issues along the way. 

Some Observations 9

Fate has a habit of throwing up some unkind and unfortunate situations, none more so than the former social worker selected by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth to investigate allegations of sexual abuse. Unbelievably, Christoper Jarvis turns out to have had paedophile interests and has just been sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for possessing seriously indecent sexual images of children on his computer. 

This news is so disturbing on a whole range of levels, but particularly that of being a breach of trust. Writing as a qualified male social worker, but one that chose a career in probation, it serves to underline the very uneasy feeling I suspect many of us have from time to time about being in the presence of children and how we might be perceived by others. It's a dreadful state of affairs, not spoken of much I suspect, but my instinct tells me it's probably a significant factor in relatively few men choosing childcare, especially residential childcare, as a career path. It's this aspect that so depresses me when I hear of men in particular who occupy positions of trust and are subsequently discovered to have been offending. It so harms us all. 

I'm grateful to the person who brought to my attention this apparent scoop by the BBC about Armley Gaol in Leeds, West Yorkshire. Apparently it has been selected as the first pilot scheme involving Payment by Results in a state-run prison. I've written somewhat enthusiastically about this idea previously and particularly in relation to the pilot scheme at privatised HMP Peterborough involving those inmates serving 12 months or less.

Somewhat astonishingly, despite the complete absence of any evidence that the idea of rewarding agencies if they succeed in reducing reoffending actually works, the Ministry of Justice nevertheless feel it's worth rolling the idea out to other establishments. But I must say I'm somewhat mystified as to how the idea will work at a state-run prison that is not working to a contract containing a profit motive. No doubt all will become clear over the coming weeks - or can someone enlighten me? Economics has never been my strong point.  

Meanwhile G4S have indeed had to replace all locks at HMP Birmingham - a very costly process indeed amounting to somewhere in the region of between £250,000 and £1million. It must rank as one of the very worst nightmares of every Number 1 Governor and the blame for the absence of a set of pass keys has indeed been put down to a disgruntled member of staff unhappy at the prison having recently been privatised. Although I've never worked in a prison, I'm sufficiently aware of basic security to know that all keys are tracked with an identity tag that has to be exchanged at the gate. I wonder how on earth someone seems to have got away with it?      

What Does a Probation Officer Do? 3

Influence

Having conducted the interviews and made an assessment, it's time to try and influence the criminal justice process and this is most often by means of a Pre Sentence Report either to the Magistrates or Crown Court. Having spent many years preparing such reports, I can say that some of my best work has been as a result of being able to influence a court to take a certain course of action that both satisfies the requirement for punishment and that encourages rehabilitation. It's at this point that issues such as Learning Disability, past emotional damage or mental health can be explored and highlighted. This is to name but a few of the vast ranges of factors that serve to contribute to someone's offending and should in my view be considered by a court before passing sentence. 

Traditionally it's been a priviledged position occupied by probation in being able to address sentencers directly. However, regular readers will be aware that I've been highly critical of recent changes in this vital area of our work and especially the extent to which OASys has had a detrimental effect both on the quality and effectiveness of PSR's. I believe this vital process of providing courts with good quality assessments and recommendations pre-sentence has been damaged significantly by OASys.

It still remains a mystery to me that Crown Court Judges in particular have had very little to say about the changes in style and content and one wonders if they did indeed ever pay much heed to PSR's at all? The upshot of the dreadful 'pull-through' OASys-generated reports foisted upon us by our prison-dominated NOMS management has been a massive increase in the time required to complete full PSR's, which in turn has had the knock-on effect of requiring short format Fast Delivery Reports that do not require OASys preparation. It's been a double whammy for the Probation Service with OASys requiring more time to complete a report and delivering reduced quality in one fell swoop.

Now even as I write this I'm aware that hackles will be raised in certain quarters and if anyone can be bothered it might re-ignite old arguments. But I think I've almost got past caring anymore. It's as I see it and I think the proof is in the fact that PSR's are fast becoming irrelevant to the Criminal Justice process. We did that - our management made an absolute cornerstone of the system redundant through a complete inability to fully understand what the true effects of OASys would be. We are now rapidly moving towards the notion of Post Sentence Reports, thus completely ditching one of the key aspects of our work, namely providing courts with information and informed assessments that are independent of the prosecution and defence, in order to assist in the process of arriving at sentences that are fair and just.

I suppose somewhat understandably I've dwelt upon the PSR in terms of influencing, but there are other situations such as Parole Board reports, Recall Reports, Sentence Planning reports etc, etc. In each case the author is challenged to express in written form what the situation is, move towards an assessment with reasoned argument and come up with a conclusion and recommendation. It's without doubt a skliful process and if undertaken professionally should seek to influence decision-makers whilst taking due regard to public protection and rehabilitation. It's not an easy path to tread and does not always win friends. It also means we remain much misunderstood as a profession.