Napo Not in the News

Napo was at the TUC yesterday moving a motion about TR just as the Prime Minister was on her feet telling the House of Commons that two Probation Officers 'had been suspended' over the SFO investigation into the Leroy Campbell case. 'Hung out to dry' and being forced to carry the can many would say as a result of TR, high caseloads, organisational ineptitude, management failings, lack of inter-agency co-operation etc, etc. 

One might reasonably expect something out of Napo in a situation like this, but the fact is the organisation is simply not geared up to be responsive enough in a world of rolling news and fast moving political stories. They must have known the Leroy story was going to break, but all power and authority to speak for the Union is clearly vested in the General Secretary alone and he can't be in two places at once.

At this critical time in our survival as a meaningful part of the criminal justice system, the union desperately needs someone other than the GS to be available and able to speak authoritatively about professional issues or we are doomed. For goodness sake, someone get a grip!     

This from the Morning Star:-

The Tories' failing programme for probation just stacks up the problems for the future

It's been four years since the introduction of former justice secretary Chris Grayling’s so-called Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) programme to rehabilitate offenders in England and Wales which has been under heavy scrutiny since before its inception.

If it wasn’t for Napo and our members pointing out the glaringly obvious flaws in these disastrously conceived plans, then it was the successive scathing reports from other quarters which have vindicated all of our predictions that the part-privatisation of probation was never going to fulfil its brief.

It all came to a head in June when the justice select committee’s eight-month inquiry concluded with chair Conservative MP Bob Neill branding the justice reforms “a mess” which left him unconvinced it could ever deliver and demanding an immediate government review.

This most damning parliamentary review followed a pile of massively critical thematic reports from HM Inspectorate of Probation, prompting Chief Inspector Dame Glenys Stacey to conclude that “this model cannot work.”

Surely there was no way the government could seriously continue to defend Grayling’s failing master plan after it had been torn to shreds so publicly over the past few years, including by prominent members of its own party.

When Napo got wind of the fact that the Ministry of Justice would be making a major announcement about probation reform in July, it certainly raised a few eyebrows.

Could it be that our prayers had finally been answered and this government would be kicking the privateers out of probation and reunifying the service? No such luck.

Instead the government decided to double down on its plans by ending the current 21 community rehabilitation companies contracts two years early just so it could carve them up into larger pieces, because what better way to reward failing companies unable to meet their obligations, which have put public safety and the future prospects of offenders at risk, than to give them an even bigger bite of the cherry?

As a glaring example of reckless self-aggrandisement and stone-faced denial of the evidence it takes some beating.

While the plight of Britain’s prisons regularly captures the imagination of the media and the public, Napo has worked hard on the difficult task of convincing an increasing number of cross-party politicians and the wider public that the current situation in probation is just as pressing and that the failures of TR are simply stacking up problems for the future.

Prisoners serving sentences in these chaotic prisons where drug use, suicide rates and violence are at an all-time high will eventually be released into our communities and have to be managed within a part-public and part-private probation service.

A service that has seen the decimation of the staffing base — especially in community rehabilitation companies — unsafe workloads, a further chaotic privatisation of the night supervision of high-risk offenders, all of which has resulted in a massive loss of morale among the workforce.

The issue of the broken probation service and its ability to properly supervise clients from all of the risk categories is something that affects us all.

This is why Napo is proposing motion 67 at the TUC calling on wider support for our campaign from colleagues across the trade union movement. We need everyone to understand that TR is not just an issue that affects how much our members are paid, their workload or levels of training and qualifications.

It has an impact on community safety with the worst consequences leaving many bereaved and grieving families understandably seeking answers from the authorities.

Unless high-quality standards of supervision and rehabilitation can be restored to somewhere like the standards that existed prior to privatisation, then there is little hope for generations of people who have served time in prison to acquire what is necessary to be productive members of society.

If the government continues with its destructive policies, it will not be long until we see an extension of the prisons crisis spilling on to our streets, with the people who are doing their very best to paper over the cracks becoming burnt out and unable to cope.

The counter-revolution that Napo is proposing is essentially simple. Step one is for this government to understand that it has got it wrong and to open up a full public debate — rather than its current sham consultation — about the future provision of services.

Napo believes that there is now an overwhelming consensus that probation must be restored back into public ownership with full accountability before Parliament, local communities and the wider tax-paying public. There is ample scope for building a new community-based justice agency free from the clammy tentacles of a dysfunctional HMPPS.

This must involve all stakeholders with a genuine interest in enabling and driving improvements to prison and probation reform. While it is acknowledged that a Labour government has pledged to deliver on this project, we need to start laying the foundations now.

A new desistance-driven rehabilitation regime that will allow the experts to do their job with the tools they need, one that involves third-sector providers committed to making a real difference. In short, a probation service that is free from the insidious neoliberal agenda implemented by then justice secretary failing Grayling that put profit first and the interests of our communities a distant second.

Ian Lawrence is general secretary of Napo.

True Cost of TR

Serious Further Offences are something all Probation Officers live in fear of and particularly the subsequent investigation. From the beginning of TR it was always said that one likely outcome would be an increase in SFO's and I have reason to believe there's been a deliberate policy of trying to hide the true extent by various means. It should be of particular concern that the suggested oversight of the process by HM Probation Inspectorate is not now to take place.

Despite all the various efforts at obfuscation where SFO's are concerned, there are some instances where public scrutiny is impossible to avoid and one such case is that of Leroy Campbell resulting in the 41-page Independent Review by HM Inspectorate just published. As one would expect it is thoroughly forensic in highlighting the various failings of organisations, processes and individuals, but in addition gives valuable insight into the role of TR and how all the dire warnings have proved to be correct. 

It addition it also gives a rare glimpse into the vitally important and skilled work of a Probation Officer involved with dangerous and risky individuals, their attempts at effecting change in an offender's thinking and behaviour and making sound judgements, the result of which can have profound consequences. It's definitely not a role for the feint-hearted, belies all the sniping about there being little need for much training and serves to highlight why the Service is in a state of chaos when such professional public servants are basically treated like shit. 

As I prepare this blog post and when you think there cannot be any further insult and humiliation that can be heaped upon the profession, I read this from yesterday:-

"Oh you don't need to worry about staff shortages in NPS much longer - Interserve told CRC staff yesterday that they've 'realised' they have too many Probation Officers and are therefore planning to 'second' (ie. pimp) those surplus to requirement to the NPS! Good old private industry eh - why waste time providing an adequate Probation service yourself when there's more money to be made from selling your qualified staff's services to other providers?" 

--oo00oo--

The following are my selected extracts that should give a flavour of the case, issues involved and in particular how TR played a significant part in the tragedy. In particular I must stress how unwise it is to expect Probation Officers to be able to handle a caseload made up of only high risk cases - it will inevitably lead to disaster for all involved.  
      
 1. Overview 

Leroy Campbell has a history of serious sexual offending, and a predilection for attacking lone women. Whilst under probation supervision in late 2016, he told his NPS probation officer that he felt vulnerable and isolated (feelings that he said were linked with his previous offending) and that he might reoffend, might rape again. A few weeks later he raped and killed Lisa Skidmore in her own home. He also attempted to murder her elderly mother in Lisa’s home, and then set fire to the property, leaving her for dead. Mrs Skidmore survived.

These were dreadful crimes. They have been devastating for the family. We offer them our sincere and heartfelt condolences. We understand that they need to know in sufficient detail, how Leroy Campbell came to reoffend in this way, and whether there is anything in the way he was supervised that increased the risk of such a thing happening. If there were failings, then family members will wish to know what is being done about it, and whether any individuals are called to account. 

When those under probation supervision commit serious further offences, the probation provider conducts a review of how well the individual was supervised by their staff while on probation. That happened in this case. The multi-agency supervision arrangements for Leroy Campbell meant that a second type of review could also be instigated, and that happened in this case as well. 

We have evaluated both of those reviews, and found them honest and reliable overall. There are one or two areas where we might have formed a different judgement, but they are not material. We agree with the reviewers: the supervision of Leroy Campbell was inadequate in several crucial respects. As a result, Lisa Skidmore, other women and the wider public were put at risk unduly, with grave consequences.

We set out in this report the detail of what happened in the supervision of Leroy Campbell, starting in 2000 when he was sentenced to life imprisonment. Many good decisions were made about his supervision within prison and upon release, but a series of unrelated yet questionable decisions and one final, very poor decision meant that his risk was not adequately managed. 

While in prison, Leroy Campbell was assessed as requiring management under what are known as Multi-Agency Public Protection arrangements (MAPPA), upon release. These are designed to ensure cooperation and integration of police, probation and other agencies’ work to protect the public once the offender is back in the community. Many high-risk offenders are managed under one of three levels of MAPPA arrangements. Level 3 arrangements (the highest level) are reserved for the small proportion of individuals where the greatest agency cooperation and management is thought necessary, to protect the public. Level 1 is by far the most common level in use. 

Leroy Campbell was expected to be managed under Level 2 or 3 upon release, but this was reduced to Level 1 during his time in prison. Although the MAPPA level was reconsidered pre-release the level was not revised and the supporting paperwork was not completed by the Probation Officer as it should have been. As a result he left prison assessed at the lowest level (Level 1) rather than the higher level expected and anticipated by senior probation staff: evaluation and record-keeping procedures were not followed properly. We find that unacceptable, and inexplicable.

While in prison, a series of 11 probation officers were responsible for his case. While changes over a long sentence are inevitable, this rate of change was exceptional. It does not support effective relationship-building or assessment. 

Leroy Campbell had a persistent offending history, and was serving a life sentence for the latest in a series of violent and serious sexual offences when the Parole Board decided to recommend his release. At that stage he was 11 years over his five-year tariff. The Parole Board had a difficult decision to make in this case, and having looked at the evidence available to us, we do not criticise the decision. 

Upon release, Leroy Campbell was managed in the community. In this case, police and probation responses at a critical time were not sufficiently co-ordinated, and a key piece of information was not recorded by Probation or shared with Police as it would have been, had Leroy Campbell been managed at a higher MAPPA level. Opportunities to review the MAPPA level during his release on temporary license were not taken. Curfew requirements imposed on Leroy Campbell by the Parole Board were relaxed, in a more casual manner than expected and sooner than expected as well. 

There were some indications given to probation officers by Leroy Campbell to suggest he remained a risk to women. He said things that could have been taken either way, but when put together they should have given probation staff cause for concern. While under release on temporary licence, he breached licence conditions designed to keep the public safe.

However, most striking in this case is a decision by probation services when Leroy Campbell was no longer living in Approved Premises. Probation staff decided NOT to respond actively enough to a clear indication that risk may be increasing notably. This individual came into the probation office and stated to his probation officer that he was thinking of raping again, and that he has been looking at - or had noticed - open windows (he had previously entered a victim’s house, to then rape her).

In our view that should have resulted in immediate, positive and firm action to protect the public – either an immediate move back to Approved Premises, or recall to prison. Instead, Leroy Campbell was left free to commit these terrible crimes. It was an aberrant decision, to leave Leroy Campbell at large. 

In the circumstances, we have looked at how the NPS has acted since, and the steps it has taken to hold its own staff to account for their standard of work. We find it odd that managers did not consider conducting an investigation immediately, or suspending any of the staff involved pending an investigation. In our view there was sufficient evidence to indicate that immediate action could and should have been taken. It was not. 

In the weeks following the offences, NPS managers scrutinised a broader sample of the work of the probation staff and managers involved in the case. The focus was to establish whether the poor judgement exercised was part of a pattern of poor practice. We have concluded that in the circumstances of this case, this approach was not sufficient.

In other areas of professional endeavour, professionals who fall far short of accepted professional standards on any occasion can be referred to their professional body for investigation and consideration of their fitness to practice. No such arrangements exist for probation professionals. While that remains the case, it is all the more important in our view that disciplinary procedures and their application pass muster, and provide the public and individuals with the assurance they need that appropriate actions are taken, and taken promptly when things go seriously wrong.

We question whether the organisation’s disciplinary procedures and its underlying disciplinary culture are sufficiently robust. The guidance available to managers on handling conduct and disciplinary investigations focused on situations where there were clear breaches of professional conduct, with little about dealing with failures in professional judgement. Some disciplinary proceedings have now been instigated here, but exceptionally late in the day and only after our interim report. Disciplinary actions should be timely in our view, to be as fair as possible to all concerned, and to maintain public trust. 

As well as dealing fairly and properly with significant professional failings, we and the wider public expect public services to learn from mistakes and put in place arrangements to reduce the risk of similar things happening again. Here the NPS has done that. It has put a lot of effort into developing a fulsome action plan and following it through. Regrettably however, the plan does not address two issues that are of national significance. 

Firstly, what is expected of senior probation officers whenever they supervise and oversee the work of less experienced staff is not sufficiently clear in our view. Professional supervision failed in this case both when Leroy Campbell was in prison and after his release – most especially when the probation officer concerned consulted a senior probation officer when Leroy Campbell disclosed he was thinking of rape. The right actions were not decided, or taken, even though Campbell’s history of offending suggested plainly the risk of a serious further offence. 

The NPS has recently reminded staff of how to deal with such disclosures, and we welcome that, albeit it is late and it simply confirms what we already expect of professional probation staff. We think there is a broader problem, however. With senior probation officers now responsible for a range of management duties, it is not clear what is expected by way of their professional supervision of less senior professional staff and their cases, or the priority to be given to that important work. The NPS should be more specific about the requirements, in our view, but progress here is slow.

Secondly, the plan does not address in any way the shortcomings of the organisation’s disciplinary procedure, or the disciplinary and accountability culture that prevails. In this case, managers responded to what we think are clear professional failings by looking at the quality of an individual’s work overall. While that is valuable in checking that an individual generally works to standard in protecting the public, it does not go far enough. 

Our view is that, whatever such an exercise shows, it is simply not acceptable that aberrant decision-making is left unaccounted for. It is unacceptable to the relatives and surviving victims of a further offence and to the wider public. In our view, the NPS should look afresh at its disciplinary policy and also consider how it deals with extremely poor decision-making, keeping public expectations about accountability in mind. 

The Skidmore family feel they have been poorly treated by the NPS following these dreadful crimes, and we agree. The NPS’s national procedures at the time for accounting to victims and their families were in our view difficult to defend: victims and families were presented with a review report to read on the spot, rather than take away. This does not build trust, and thankfully these procedures have now changed. 

In this case, reports were prepared to a good standard but it was a lot for the family to take in. What is more, in the meeting that followed immediately after their reading of the material, and subsequently, the family have found the NPS defensive, and unwilling to admit management shortcomings or to hold any individuals to account.

Indeed, although the NPS developed and implemented its action plan, it is only after the family’s determined pursuit of the facts and then the intervention of the minister, that certain actions have been taken by the NPS. That does not reflect well on the organisation, or restore the family’s trust. Some individuals are now subject to disciplinary proceedings, but it is very late in the day. 

Finally, this family’s distress at the loss of Lisa and the ghastly circumstances of her death was exacerbated by an application by the defendant for a second post mortem. The NPS were unaware of this application. Leroy Campbell made that application just one day before the time limit for application expired. It had regrettable consequences for the family, and their grief. The family suspect the applicant had self-serving reasons for the request, rather than the pursuit of justice. We do think government should consider whether the process of application for second post mortems is sufficiently robust.

5. Previous offending

LC has a history of similar offences. 

He has six previous convictions for 11 offences including rape, burglary, attempting to strangle, acquisitive offences and drug-related offences. In 1983 he entered a nurses’ home and attempted to choke or strangle a nurse with intent to rape or otherwise sexually assault her. He received a seven-year prison sentence for that. Then in January 1992 he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for an offence of rape, which he committed after breaking into the flat of a woman and her five-year old child, and threatening her with a knife. He was made subject to the requirements of the sex offenders’ register, for life. 

In May 2000 LC was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of five years for offences of false imprisonment. He also received concurrent determinate sentences of eight years and three years respectively for linked offences of burglary (x2) with intent to rape and indecent assault. The tariff on this sentence expired in 2005, but as we detail below, the Parole Board did not direct his release on life licence until 2016.

6. The period in closed prison

6.1. The period 2000 – 2011

Following sentence in 2000, the probation officer who prepared the post sentence report assessed LC as posing a high risk of serious harm to others, in particular adult females.

In 2003 LC was detained at HMP Manchester, and it was there he had his first parole review. He had completed the Enhanced Thinking Skills course, a course designed to help individuals think more clearly and take responsibility for their actions. The Parole Board determined that he was not suitable for release or transfer to an open prison. 

The following year a senior probation office (SPO) reviewed LC’s progress in custody and concluded that if released he should be managed at Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangement (MAPPA) Level 3, the highest level of multi-agency supervision. 

In 2005, while at HMP Wakefield, he had a second parole review. By then he had completed the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP) as well as alcohol and drugs awareness courses and drugs therapy. He had attended a workshop on alternatives to anger. He had also participated in one to one counselling in relation to the sexual abuse he had experienced as a child. The Parole Board again determined that he was not suitable for release or transfer to an open prison. The panel thought he needed to complete further offending behaviour work. 

He commenced the Extended SOTP in 2007. A third parole review happened that year. The Parole Board panel dealing with the case considered that despite having served seven years in prison and having completed two sex offender programmes (the first being on a previous sentence), the fact remained that LC was still obsessed with sex. He continued to be assessed as posing a high risk of harm to others. 

The Parole Board decided once again that he was not suitable for release or transfer to open conditions.

In January 2008 a senior probation officer responsible for MAPPA reviewed the file, and noted that LC was considered as a MAPPA Level 1 whilst in custody but likely to rise to Level 2 on release, due to the concerning pattern of offending and the need for active multi-agency management when he was in the community. The SPO noted that six months before release. LC should be reassessed and the required MAPPA screening completed so that he could be referred into Level 2 or 3 management. 

A fourth parole review took place in 2009. By then, LC had completed SOTP, Extended SOTP, Enhanced Thinking Skills, art and design courses and a tailoring course. This time, the panel did not recommend release, but that he should be moved to a prison that provided a therapeutic community (such as HMP Dovegate). This prison has a separate 200-bed therapeutic community for repeat serious offenders. The unit offers residents daily group therapy. The move did not happen straightaway. 

Subsequently, the Sentence Planning Board noted that LC was in a low and uncooperative mood during its discussion about the prospect of a move to HMP Dovegate. The Board agreed nevertheless that the transfer should take place. LC subsequently re-engaged with the HMP Wakefield’s psychology team, in preparation for the transfer, and he was moved to HMP Dovegate in 2011.

6.2. HMP Dovegate Therapeutic Community 2011 – 2014

After LC was transferred to HMP Dovegate, his next parole review was deferred until he completed specific offending behaviour work. When the review took place in 2011, the panel was still concerned about the risk of harm this individual posed to others, specifically women. The Parole Board decided against release: it was not thought to be a viable option. 

By May 2012, LC was six years over his tariff. At his therapy review that month, those working with him stated that he was not addressing the underlying issues of anger relating to the sexual abuse he himself had experienced. He had previously said that one reason he committed the offences and humiliated and degraded his victims was to make them feel the same way he had felt when abused. The assessor concluded that he was still posed a high risk of harm to others, and proposed that he should remain at HMP Dovegate in order to reduce future risk. 

The assessor recommended that LC’s past abuse and emotions could be explored by LC participating in the SOTP ‘Better Lives Booster’ programme. However, LC was later informed that he would not be able to complete the programme whilst in custody, as the programme was only available in a limited number of closed prisons. In June 2013, LC’s probation officer contacted the Probation Divisional Sex Offender Unit (DSOU) and was advised to refer LC to the unit three months before release. In that way, he could be allocated to the ‘Better Lives Booster’ in reasonable time and complete the programme whilst on licence in the community. 

An addendum to the parole report was prepared by the PO in June 2014, in readiness for the parole review anticipated for a few months hence. The probation officer noted that he had made some progress, and presented as having overcome the difficulties regarding emotional management which had previously led to isolation and negative thoughts. He still needed to demonstrate that he could maintain this over a period of time, however. At times he remained over-confident in his ability to remain offence free. 

The report summary stated that although LC had been in HMP Dovegate since 2011, at times he seemed more interested in moving to a lower category of prison than in the content of the programmes. The report concluded, however, that he could be moved to open conditions with a view to focussing on emotional management, substance misuse and education, training and employment. 

In June 2014, following the implementation of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme, all cases held by the former probation trusts were transferred to either the National Probation Service (NPS) or to a Community Rehabilitation Company. LC was transferred to the Midlands division of the NPS. For LC this meant a change of PO and SPO. The new PO attended the parole oral hearing in August 2014. On this occasion, the Parole Board decided that LC could move to North Sea Camp, an open prison, and he transferred there the following month.

6.3. HMI Probation key findings from this period

We have not examined in detail all the records of the period in prison. From what we have read, however, it appears that probation staff retained contact with LC and the prison, attending lifer reviews, therapeutic reviews and sentence planning board meetings. 

During this time, 11 different POs were responsible for the case. Whilst it is inevitable that supervisory changes take place, this level of change was unusual at that time, and it is both undesirable and unsatisfactory. It cannot have assisted effective relationship-building or assessment, or the continuity of work. 

Continuity of management oversight can facilitate effective transfer of responsibility between probation officers, helping new staff to become familiar with the case. This is particularly important in a case like that of LC, whose files dated back many years and contained extensive information. However, over the period, five different SPOs held oversight responsibilities in this case. 

--//--

The parole hearing in August 2014 took place shortly after the restructuring of probation services heralded by the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme. While this is no excuse, it is a relevant consideration. We understand that the PO to whom LC had been transferred had just been given a full caseload of offenders who presented a high risk of harm to others; this amounted to 36 cases, of which 35 had committed MAPPA eligible offences. The SPO at this point was also new to the transferred cases. 

The changes brought in by the restructuring of probation services meant that the NPS became entirely focused on MAPPA cases and those presenting a high risk of harm to others. This is a significant change for those staff and managers who had previously held a more varied caseload. Prioritisation now meant identifying the highest risk cases within a caseload where few present a low risk. One could speculate that the benchmark for cases that receive the most attention moved upwards.

Where Are The Men?

As we continue to 'mark time' whilst the sham probation 'consultation' exercise is undertaken, we might as well take a look at another article from the latest PI magazine:- 

Gender Matters in the PQiP 

Paula Hamilton, Senior Lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, explores some possible implications of the gender ratio in probation training.

As one of the three nationally contracted Higher Education providers, here at Sheffield Hallam University we are currently delivering the academic component of the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) to the fourth cohort of learners from across the North East and North West divisions. One of the most notable, but perhaps less surprising, features of the first cohorts is the relative lack of diversity in terms of age, ethnicity and gender and the predominance of young, white, female learners. National data from Havas people/ HMPPS (2017) shows that for PQiP cohorts 1 to 3 (including 2A) between 78% and 82% of learners have been women – a pattern of gender distribution that is replicated in the North East and North West divisions.

The age and ethnic distribution of the future probation officer workforce are, of course, hugely significant issues given the widely accepted notion that the probation workforce should reflect the communities they work with. However, it is the feminisation of probation, which continues apace in terms of those recruited to the PQiP, that is arguably one of the most significant changes that has occurred in the organisation but one which has received relatively little attention. While it is not within the scope of this short piece to engage in an in-depth discussion of what is meant by ‘feminisation’, it should be noted that it is a contested term and refers to a potential difference of occupational culture, not just numerical female domination of an occupation.

From its inception until the early 1990’s the probation service was a male-dominated organisation. The ‘tipping point’ came in 1993 when for the first time there were more women than men probation officers. It has been noted that this shift from a masculinised to a feminised service came, paradoxically, at a time when the then Conservative government ideology and rhetoric had become increasingly punitive and indeed ‘macho’; exhorting the probation service to take ‘centre stage’ in the masculinised penal system or face its own demise, and explicitly encouraging ex-police and armed forces (male) personnel into the service as second career entrants via a direct entry, skills based only route.

Against this backdrop the Diploma in PS (Dip PS) was introduced in 1998. While cementing the break with social work education, the Dip PS resisted the technicist, skills-only version of the probation officer envisaged by the Conservatives, retaining training within a higher education framework through the integration of a work-based NVQ alongside academic assessment in a two year qualification. Despite the fact that the Dip PS involved a common undergraduate level for all entrants, it tended to attract mainly female and mainly white graduates in their twenties (NOMS 2013) with the gender ratio at this level in 2007 being 72.86% women to 27.14% men (Ministry of Justice 2007).

In 2010 the Dip PS was replaced by the Probation Qualifications Framework (PQF) in an effort to enable existing probation service officers (PSOs) to train without losing job security and employment benefits via a foundation degree to an honours degree alongside a fast track qualification – the Graduate Diploma – for existing and newly recruited staff with relevant degrees.

In 2016 the PQF was replaced by the Community Justice Learning framework, at the apex of which sits the PQiP. Although access to the PQiP itself is fairly straightforward for those graduates with a relevant degree – and in that respect is similar to the preceding PQF Graduate Diploma - the PQiP is underpinned by a flexible (and complex) matrix of distance learning qualifications that allow learners to ‘bridge’ their previous learning to make them eligible for the PQiP or provide ‘ladders’ for learners who have practice experience but little or no academic background.

Therefore since 2010 and the introduction of the PQF, the two main entry points for professional qualification have been progression from probation service officer grade or via a relevant undergraduate degree, both of which in themselves are female-dominated. As offenderfacing work has been increasingly devolved to probation service officer grade, the number of PSOs has expanded and the gender balance is broadly the same as for main grade officers.

Meanwhile a gender gap in those going to British universities has also gained pace - in 2016 66,840 more women than men were on degree courses, compared with a gap of 34,035 in 2007 (The Guardian, 5th Jan 2016). More specifically the requirement to have a relevant degree to be eligible for the PQiP in essence means a criminology degree (in the main), itself a female-dominated subject area.

All of this raises three questions - why has the probation service become feminised, but perhaps more importantly, what are the implications of this and, if deemed desirable, what can be done to attract more men (as well as older people and those from minority ethnic backgrounds) into probation?

Some of the potential answers to these questions are explored more fully elsewhere (see for example Annison, 2013; Mawby and Worrall, 2011, 2013), but in terms of explaining how and why the service has become feminised, commentators have highlighted the broader trend of younger women seizing opportunities for work and education and seeing opportunities for professional development and a place for themselves in probation. Also discussed is the idea that due to repeated restructuring and reorganisation and changes to working practices, the ‘ideal (probation) worker’ (Acker, 2006) has been recast with women responding in terms of adaptability and in addressing competency requirements (Annison, 2013).

In terms of implications, authors have raised issues around the relationship between a feminised probation service and other male-dominated criminal justice agencies, and the difficulties some male officers may face in navigating the feminised environment (Mawby and Worrall, 2011). Significantly however, it has been suggested that the feminisation of probation has not, as might be stereotypically expected, meant a return to the service’s traditional social work roots, and furthermore that many women officers see the ‘symbolic mother’ role as inappropriate, instead seeing their role more as ‘symbolic victim’ in terms of confronting and holding offenders to account (Mawby and Worrall 2013:137).

This brings us to one of the less well explored areas – the implications of a feminised service for work with, overwhelmingly, male offenders. Mirroring most theories of crime causation, and ignoring the fact that crime is an overwhelmingly a male activity, aside from work with domestic violence perpetrators (and perhaps even less so these days even with this group), policy and practice tends not to explicitly recognise or engage with masculinities and masculine self-identity. My own research has suggested that this is a vital dimension of practice, and that the process of personal change for some men would seem to be predicated on a complex, emotionally charged, reworking of masculine identity which then allows them to move towards desistance.

While of course not suggesting that women cannot help men through this process, it would seem that having regular access to a male role model who displays alternative ways of being a man to the harmful masculinities associated with criminal and anti-social behaviour can be an extremely important element. Such practice that engages with men, masculinities and emotions could, in turn, also be seen as offering an opportunity to have a more transformative effect on the particular discourse of masculinity that is seen to still pervade the criminal justice and penal systems into which female officers seem to have been subsumed (Mawby and Worrall, 2011).

Finally in terms of attracting more men into the service – and a more diverse workforce overall, the recent relaxation of eligibility criteria for the PQiP from a relevant i.e. a criminology degree to any degree may go some way to achieve this but it is still too early to tell. However, it is likely that more radical action, including efforts to raise the media and public profile of the probation service in line with other male-dominated criminal justice agencies, along with continued efforts to maintain and promote the professional status of the probation officer will ultimately be what is needed.

Paula Hamilton

Wits' End

Regular readers will be aware that I'm contemptuous of the current MoJ 'consultation' on the future of probation. Grayling's devastating TR cock-up appears so complete, only a return to something like the situation pre-TR will have any chance of trying to repair any of the damage and we all know political u-turns are extremely rare and not likely for a service with such a low public profile. Why, even the redoubtable Russell Webster seems at his wits' end with it all:- 

Payment by results and all that jazz

This is the sixth and final in a series of posts exploring the Ministry of Justice’s plans to re-design its Transforming Rehabilitation project. The MoJ says it wants our views on how best to re-design probation and asks 17 key questions in its consultation document, “Strengthening probation, building confidence”.

This week’s post examines the final, and perhaps most important, question asked by the MoJ – how to drive performance improvements.

Question 17: What should our key measures of success be for probation providers, and how can we effectively encourage the right focus on those outcomes and on the quality of services?

When commentators questioned Chris Grayling’s original privatisation of the probation system, his counter-argument was that the new private providers would be subject to payment by results based contracts; in short:

“If they don’t do the job, we won’t pay them.”

However, that didn’t prove to be the case; probation performance has been poor, but on the whole CRC providers have been paid; partly in acknowledgement that the original contracts were under-funded and that CRCs did not receive the amount o f business they had been promised.

The latest PbR probation performance figures, which cover the CRCs’ first year of operation were analysed for this blog by Jack Cattell of Get the Data. He concluded:

The macro trend across all CRCs was for fewer re-offenders but those that did were likely to commit more re-offences than previously.

This meant that the CRCs recorded a small overall increase in the number of reoffences compared to the contract baseline year of 2011.

However, over the course of TR, there has been an emerging academic and practitioner consensus (with which I wholeheartedly agree) that reoffending rates (both “binary” – did someone reoffend? – and “frequency” – how many offences did they commit?) are poor indicators of probation performance. Overlying crime trends (fewer crimes, more committed online and undetected) and local police priorities and diminishing resources are likely to be more powerful influencers of official reconviction data.

In common sense terms, this is plain to see from the fact that during the large scale upheaval and crash in morale which characterised the last two years of the former probation system and the first year of TR, reoffending rates still fell.

One of the main drivers of the current re-configuration of the probation system was the MoJ’s awareness not only that the current system is drastically under-funded, but that the contract conditions in coming years (where CRCs’ income would increasingly be dependent on their reoffending outcomes) were almost inevitably going to cause several providers to fail.

Changes in the payment mechanism

The MoJ is clear that it wants to change the way CRCs are funded and to devise new performance incentives. Interestingly, it says it wants to focus on key desistance factors such as housing, jobs and drug & alcohol treatment, even though all these are beyond the influence of CRCs are have all themselves experienced large cuts in government expenditure through the years of austerity.

One of the options the MoJ is considering is setting a “Guaranteed Maximum Price with Target Cost” (already a new acronym “GMPTC”). If this option is adopted, then bidders will submit a target cost and target price (including profit) for given volume bands of different activities. The MoJ will pay actual costs up to the maximum price with profit going up and down inversely to actual costs. One of the intriguing implications of this approach is that, in direct contrast to the original TR contracts, it requires open-book accounting and reviews and justifications of costs. The MoJ provided an illustration of the GMPTC approach in its engagement events:


To my mind, the GMPTC option is a clear indication of the difficulties facing the MoJ. My first reaction is that this is an exceedingly complex system, vulnerable to gaming, and certain to use up significant resources at HMPPS and providers which could be better spent on service delivery.

Conclusion

My initial purpose in this series of posts was to raise key issues and stimulate positive ideas about how to re-design the probation service for the better. I have to say that I am disappointed at my inability to suggest positive ways forward.

I think I have a clear-headed view of the political realities which mean that a “mixed-economy” is inevitable (it’s unlikely that a Conservative Government would admit that a privatisation project has failed and Chris Grayling still sits at the Cabinet table). Nevertheless, I find it difficult to make positive, concrete suggestions to the well-acknowledged difficulties besetting the modern probation service.

For me, the root of all these problems is the design of a split service. Everyone affected by probation — courts, PCCs, partners, victims and offenders themselves — sees probation as a single service whose aim is to protect the public and help offenders desist from crime. The National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies don’t think like this, focusing only on their own remit and responsibilities.

This fragmentation is the root cause of many, indeed most, of the key questions raised by the MoJ be they sentencer confidence in community sentences, better through-the-gate work or common professional training.

It is for the elected government of the day to decide whether probation should be a public or private enterprise but for the life of me, I find it hard to see how the current two-tier model (which the current consultation has re-confirmed) will succeed.

Russell Webster

Voluntary Sector Pitch

I saw a couple of interesting tweets today and they serve to highlight how the voluntary and third sector are pitching strongly for a big slice of the action in the latest probation carve-up:- 

"I look forward to meeting the Prisons and Probation minister Rory Stewart this morning. I’ll make the case that the voluntary sector should play a central role in redesigning probation, and highlight the financial and evidential contribution of charitable foundations to the CJS."

"The meeting with Minister Stewart was a positive, robust and interesting discussion. He put forward a lot of ideas for positive change, and wants to work with communities, civil society and philanthropy in identifying solutions to the current challenges. An encouraging start."

The author is Max Rutherford a policy wonk with ACF, the Association of Charitable Foundations. This from Linked In:-

I am an experienced social justice professional with a strong reputation, a diverse network and a proven track record for achieving structural social change that improves lives, increases service effectiveness and reduces inequalities. I have significant expertise in social policy, research, project management, partnership-working and grant-making.

I have worked in the voluntary sector, parliament and government, led high-profile campaigns, and delivered short and long-term programmes. I serve on a diverse range of boards and committees, and as a trustee to two charities. I regularly brief ministers and officials, engage the media, present at and chair conferences and high-level events, and author policy and research publications.

Recent board and committee roles include:

• Charity SORP Committee member - review and make recommendations for changes to charity accounting practice, convened by UK and Ireland's four charity regulators (2018-);
• Trustee of Voluntary Impact – Regional infrastructure charity (2017-);
• Trustee of Headway Northampton – Brain injury rehabilitation charity (2015-);
• Associate of the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice (Scotland) – to contribute to its practice, research, and knowledge exchange (2016-8);
• Chair of Association of Charitable Foundations’ Criminal Justice Funder Group – convening and chairing meetings of senior foundation representatives (2014-8);
• Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Leadership Board member – advising ministers and officials on policy and strategy (2015-8);
• AGENDA (the Alliance for women and girls at risk) steering group member - to oversee the delivery of the campaign, finances and governance (2016-8);
• Young Review steering group member – to support Baroness Young’s report on the over-representation of black and Muslim young men in the criminal justice system (2015-8); 
• London Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime – working group member on a multi-£million policing intervention project (2015-8)

This from ACF website:-

ACF is the membership body for UK foundations and grant-making charities. Driven by a belief that foundations are a vital source for social good, our mission is to support them to be ambitious and effective in the way that they use their resources. We do this through the provision of policy and advocacy, research and information, and a wide-ranging programme of events and learning. Our 350 members collectively hold assets of around £50bn and give over £2.5bn annually.

Founded in 1989, ACF was established as a member-led association that should be fully responsive to the concerns and priorities of its members.

What Future for Probation? 4

We all know that the voluntary and third sector were tricked into believing they would have a central role in delivering TR first time around. Understandably they see an opportunity to seek redress during the current 'sham' consultation process and avoid being used as 'bid candy' second time round. Here we have Clinks putting the case forward for the sector in the latest PI magazine:-

At time of writing Government is in the process of a major consultation on the future of probation, which will be welcome to many people working in the voluntary sector and in the criminal justice system. 

Clinks has been calling for this since the publication in May of the third report of our research into the role of voluntary sector organisations in probation. Since 2015 we have been working to track the impact of the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms on our sector. TR brought significant changes and the rhetoric that surrounded it initially heralded a new age for probation services and promised a central role for voluntary sector organisations, who have a 300 year history working in this area and whose innovation and responsiveness to people’s needs led to the formation of what became our probation system. The concerns we raise in that research have been echoed in a variety of other reports from the Public Accounts Committee, Justice Committee and HM Inspectorate of Probation which all highlight how the previous changes to probation, under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, have negatively impacted the quality of probation services.

REHABILITATION TRANSFORMED? 

The voluntary sector working in criminal justice is made up of around 1700 organisations with a workforce larger than that of the prison and probation services combined. It has a long history of providing support alongside statutory probation services. These organisations offer specialist services to address the complex causes of offending such as homelessness, unemployment, mental ill health, and substance misuse. They do not, in the main, deliver the sentence of the court. Instead they provide the wrap-around services needed to support an individual to complete that sentence and live a fulfilling life beyond it.

But Clinks’ and partners’ research has shown that the vital services these organisations provide have not been utilised to support people under probation supervision as envisaged. In fact the voluntary sector is under-represented, under pressure and under-resourced in the current delivery of probation. Voluntary sector involvement in supply chains is low and charities that are in supply chains have had to adapt services or subsidise them with other charitable funds, undermining their quality and sustainability. 

The unrealised vision of creating innovative probation services that contract a range of support to reduce reoffending has led to a lack of clarity about what CRCs and the NPS should be funding. This has negatively affected the ability of the voluntary sector working in criminal justice to fundraise from other sources.

WHAT NEXT FOR PROBATION? 

The Ministry of Justice is proposing that future arrangements will be much clearer about what providers are required to deliver – something which Clinks has called for. This will be more clearly focused on ‘core offender management functions’ and ‘delivering the standards that the courts require’.

Beyond that they will also define where probation may seek to commission services, and where they should seek to influence the delivery of other local services. They also state an intention to set out a clearer role for the voluntary sector and better facilitate its involvement in the design and delivery of probation services.

While this clarity is much needed, there is a potential contradiction and risk in the language used in the proposals. Describing offender management functions as the ‘core’ of probation risks interpretation that this is also the ‘core’ of rehabilitation and resettlement. In many cases what is ‘core’ to supporting a person’s desistance is far more complex and the need for services that respond to that complexity, as well as consideration of how probation can secure access to them, must remain central in the development of these proposals. It will be vital, as the new contracts are developed, to ensure that these additional but nonetheless essential services are properly enabled to support offender management. 

The proposals do recognise this and ask how the Ministry of Justice can better engage voluntary sector providers in the design and delivery of rehabilitation and resettlement services for offenders in the community. It is welcome that the Ministry of Justice is asking this question openly of the sector and recognising the value of co-designing commissioning and partnership working arrangements.

The MoJ briefly sets out some potential future models for this, such as separate frameworks or dynamic purchasing systems at national and regional levels but the detail is lacking. Given the experience of many organisations under the current system, as well as recent experiences of the commissioning of families services and the current education contracts commissioning process, significant assurances will be needed by many in the sector that the lessons of the past will be learnt and applied.

Another key proposal is to better integrate the CRCs and NPS, in England, by co-locating them in 10 new probation areas, reduced from the current 21. This will mean that the areas in which future CRCs are operating will be significantly larger than they currently are. To ensure voluntary sector involvement it will be essential that consideration is given to the impact this might have on contract size and the provision of specialist and localised services. 

In Wales, the proposals are significantly different, with the functions of the CRC and NPS integrated into a single organisation with responsibility for all offenders. Additional services that support rehabilitation and resettlement will then be put out to tenders to enable a range of providers and voluntary sector organisations to compete to deliver them. There is currently very little Welsh voluntary sector involvement in the Welsh CRC’s supply chain and this model will need to address this in order to ensure services are appropriately localised.

TRexit or TRlite? 

There is much in these proposals to welcome and that responds to the concerns raised by Clinks’ research and others. The Ministry of Justice’s commitment to openly engage with the sector on all these issues is also good news and hopefully will mean that any future probation system will be able to take full advantage of the skills and expertise that reside in our sector. 

It is also clear that the Ministry of Justice is somewhat bound by the parameters of what it can do both politically, to avoid accusations of a full u-turn, and economically, given its current cash-strapped position. The final reforms arrived at after the consultation period must address the fundamental limitations of the current system and not just fiddle with detail and presentation or they will risk not changing anything at all.

Jessica Mullen and Anne Fox, CLINKS

No Easy Answers

In trying to make sense of what happens next to the Probation Service now that there's wide acceptance that TR has been, as predicted, an unmitigated disaster, a chance comment has caused me to dig around in the Parliamentary archives. Rooting around the third report of the Home Affairs Committee of 1997/8 has been a real eye-opener and to be frank it's uncovered some surprising evidence from a number of sources that serves to confirm just how difficult it is to extrapolate meaningful policy decisions from individual behaviour. 

I note that some of the characters involved are still around, but in different guises. Some would no doubt be comfortable to be reminded of their thoughts and contributions, others possibly not. Here's a flavour from the early Blair years:-

14. The rising prison population caused near-universal concern amongst the witnesses from whom we took evidence. The Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP) thought the prison population was too large, and drew attention to what they considered to be the irony of an increasing prison population at a time of falling recorded crime. Mr Paul Cavadino, on behalf of the Penal Affairs Consortium, told us that his organisation would "like to see fewer people in prison". The Howard League for Penal Reform, referring to the "unprecedented quantum leap in prison numbers 1993", encouraged the Government to "strike a course which heads away from the culture of severity". Mr Tim Workman, a Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate representing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, also told the Committee that the prison population was too large. Perhaps the most robust evidence the Committee received suggesting that the prison population was too large was from Sir David Ramsbotham, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. In oral evidence to the Committee he stated that perhaps 70 per cent of female prisoners did not need to be in prison; that 30 per cent to 40 per cent of young prisoners did not need to be there; and that 30 per cent of all adult prisoners did not need to be given custodial sentences. It should be emphasised that no witnesses challenged the role of prison in dealing with certain types of serious offender.

15. The rapid rise in the prison population looks set to continue. Most witnesses to this inquiry had concerns about this and some, like the Chief Inspector of Prisons, explicitly called for a reduction in the prison population. However, one group of witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee felt that the prison population should be larger: Mr Peter Coad and Mr David Fraser, retired senior probation officers, and Professor Ken Pease, of Huddersfield University, argued that only prison sentences offered adequate protection to the public and, given the level of crime, more criminals should be given custodial sentences. Professor Pease thought that prison should be targeted more at the most prolific offenders and that the population should be increased by around 10-20,000. Mr Coad's written evidence states that "if the sentencing patterns of the 1950's had been applied to offenders in the 1990's, 300,000 would now be in prison". In oral evidence, Mr Coad and Mr Fraser argued that the prison population should "go as high as is necessary to protect the public from persistent offenders" and that this would entail a prison population of 200,000 "to begin with".

The organisation of the probation service

125. The probation service is comprised of 54 individual probation services, which are each headed by a Chief Probation Officer. The absence of a single organisation has prompted calls for the service to be unified. Sir David Ramsbotham, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons made such a call: "I personally think ­ this is probably a radical thought on it­ that it is time that the probation service was made a national service and came under national jurisdiction like the Prison Service. This is because again there is tremendous unevenness in what is done in different probation areas around the country. That is not to blame the individual probation officers so much. If we are going to stiffen up on what is done as a community sentence...then it ought to be dictated rather more and structured rather more". Sir David went on to explain that following the establishment of a national service, he would like to see the probation service merge with the Prison Service.

126. The National Association of Probation Officers supported the setting up of a single probation service: "there are still 54 separate probation services each following its own local priorities, and in many instances those local priorities are inconsistent with those of their neighbours. NAPO believes that this system is no longer viable, indeed that the structures are anachronistic. NAPO believes there is an overwhelming case for reducing the number of services and for co-terminous boundaries with other criminal justice agencies. Substantial savings on bureaucracy could be made and transferred to frontline services. NAPO is concerned that traditionally there has been no voice as there is with the Prison Service to represent and argue the probation service's case in government and in public expenditure rounds".

127. Mr Graham Smith, the Chief Inspector of Probation acknowledged that there would be advantages in a single service, especially in advancing the Inspectorate's cause of increasing effectiveness, but went on to say: "However, there is something essentially local about crime, that it is different in Powys from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and also people respond to local crime so that the probation service is much more popular in the local community with the local press than, for example, it is with the national press who generally tend to dismiss it and not to be very complimentary. If a national service damaged those local roots, I would have considerable anxiety." He concluded that he would be "cautious" about creating a national service.

128. This issue will be one of a number which has been looked at in the review of the work of the Prison and probation services announced by the Home Secretary last July. The Prisons and Probation Minister told us: "Obviously some people have felt...that probation can suffer from not having a very obvious national voice and often the contrast is made with, say, the national organisation of the Prison Service where the Prison Service tends to have a high profile in public terms and the probation service does not. ...Also, in terms of the 54 areas, the argument has frequently been put forward that very often those boundaries are not coterminous with any other parts of the criminal justice system and that makes communication difficult between different parts of the system and therefore some rationalisation is probably a good idea. What we do need to do...is strike a balance between the need to have good National Standards and a national profile for the probation service on the one hand and yet allow much of the good local and regional partnerships that have been built up to continue. It is self-evident that the probation service needs a good, close working relationship with the Prison Service. We are also very much aware that the probation service needs a good working relationship at local level with the Police Service, with local authorities, social services departments in particular, health authorities, education authorities and so on".

129. We look forward to the outcome of the prison-probation review. We note with interest the requests put to us by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and by NAPO for the creation of a single probation service. We appreciate the caution expressed by the Chief Inspector of Probation concerning the local nature of crime, but we also note that he perceived advantages in the creation of a single service.

Responses to Demise of TR 6

Here we have some thoughts on probation training post TR from the Probation Institute in their latest magazine:-

Probation Training and Qualifications: An overview

This issue of Probation Quarterly goes out during the important consultation on the future of Probation itself. It is particularly timely to focus part of this PQ on probation training; the future of training and ongoing professional development feature in the consultation and are of great significance, but there is a risk that these issues will attract less attention than the questions about the future structures and systems. 

The history of probation training over the last 50 years is in many ways the history of probation and reflects the importance of professional training. The decision to retain probation practice within social work training and in higher education in the early 1970s post Seebohm helped to affirm probation as a profession. The retention, after an extensive campaign, of probation training in higher education in the late 1990s, albeit separated from social work as a distinct qualification, continued the professional status.

Whichever way the consultation takes us in 2018 - if indeed this is genuine consultation - there may well be further challenges to the higher education status. Question 10 is a very open question inviting a range of ideological answers: “Which skills, training or competencies do you think are essential for Responsible Officers authorised to deliver probation services, and how do you think these differ depending on the types of offenders staff are working with?” 

The consultation paper barely uses the term “probation officer” or “probation services officer”. It uses the terms “Responsible Officer” and “Offender Manager” somewhat interchangeably. The naming and defining of job roles needs to be addressed not fudged in this consultation. These are critical issues but there are also bigger gains to pursue in the arena of training and professional development.

The decision not to regulate training and qualifications in TR was one of the many serious ideological errors and one which threatened to destroy the consistency of professional training for probation staff - Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers. 

A Level 6 (Degree Level) Apprenticeship is currently being developed, with PQiP at its heart. This Apprenticeship is being developed by an Employer Development Group led by NPS and CRCs and is intended for all those currently qualified through PQiP as Probation Officers. 

This is an important development not least in having successfully achieved the support of the majority of the CRCs after two years of uncertainty in which a number of the CRCs gave serious consideration to developing their own qualifications for their own “equivalent” roles. Had the Apprenticeship not offered hard cash to the CRCs it is unlikely that they would have cooperated.

The new breed of Apprenticeships led by the new Apprenticeship Institute is far from settled down however, and care will be needed to support and ensure the high quality of this Degree Level Apprenticeship and it’s implementation. In parallel is the development of the Level 3 Apprenticeship replacing the VQ3 for those roles designated Probation Services Officers and equivalent roles in both NPS and the CRCs. It is well documented that this group of practitioners in both NPS and in CRCs carry responsibilities which would once have fallen to a fully qualified Probation Officer and that consistency of training and qualifications is critical for this group also. There is a pressing need to resolve the naming of these job roles.

An important message for the consultation is that training and qualifications must be regulated for clear roles with agreed role definitions. By regulation we mean legislation. The consultation also seeks views on the proposed Professional Register - how this should operate and for whom. In this proposal there is the opportunity to resolve the job titles and regulate the training and qualifications for agreed roles. It should be stated very clearly in response to the consultation that the Professional Register must include any contracted private providers of Probation Services, should these continue.

Not everyone in MOJ is committed to training Probation Officers in higher education. The closer working relationship with the Prison Service and the introduction of Offender Managers in prisons has prompted questions about the disparity between prison and probation training. Respondents to the consultation should take the opportunity to reinforce the importance of a degree level qualification and why it is so important. Bear in mind that policing has now accepted that a degree level qualification is a necessary outcome of initial training for police constables.

There are gaps in training for probation officers and these include brokering and supporting appropriate commissioned services, irrespective of the role of the private sector. 

What of bigger prizes? Given the increasing responsibilities of the role this may be an opportunity to suggest that the qualification for a “Probation Services Officer” and their equivalents should be raised to Vocational Level 4. Police Community Support Officers have introduced a Level 4 Apprenticeship.

For the voluntary sector? The emerging Level 3 Apprenticeship was initially designed to include the voluntary sector. St Giles Trust, PACT and RISE each contributed and supported the draft standard. This support has been lost through delay but in our view this could be rebuilt. The purpose would be to enable voluntary organisations to be a genuine part of the development and management of an appropriate, aligned Apprenticeship, and to draw down funding for training and assessment standards which their practitioner staff could reliably achieve. This step would extend professional training and qualifications to the voluntary sector for the first time, inviting them to join the Professional Register.

A further prize would be to extend the Professional Register to Offender Managers (at least) in the Prison Service and to Youth Offending Practitioners. The benefit of this reach would be to establish one Professional Body across Probation, Prisons, Youth Justice and the voluntary sector working in justice. This would be an independent statutory body having significant scope to advance consistency and professional development across services, a better prospect of resourcing and a breadth of authority currently lacking in any forum.

Helen Schofield 

Acting CEO, Probation Institute

Probation in a Post TR World

Granada has been investigating the worrying number of SFO's:- 

LICENSED TO KILL: The shocking number of killings carried out by criminals released early from prison

An exclusive Granada Reports investigation has revealed the shocking number of killings carried out by criminals who've been released early from prison. In one part of Greater Manchester alone, over the past three years, three offenders have committed murder or manslaughter after they'd been released into the community to serve the rest of their sentence on licence.

The families of two of those victims claim they've been failed by the system that was supposed to protect them. The Probation Service Union says their members have passed breaking point and mistakes are being made. This exclusive investigation comes from our correspondent, Matt O'Donoghue.

--oo00oo--

An extremely thorough resume of the situation from the Independent:-  

If you're worried about prison conditions, you should be deeply disturbed by what happens after inmates are released

Privatisation of the probation service hasn't just made it far less effective – it's becoming downright dangerous

It’s not just HMP Birmingham – although the staggering tales of Spice-intoxicated inmates roaming the hallways and guards locking themselves into their offices certainly mark it as an outlier. The whole of Britain’s prison system is in a state of crisis. Staff working in dangerous conditions report chaos on prison wings, and feeling unsupported and fearful on a day-to-day basis. The situation is so bad that a third of those who join the prison service now leave within a year.

Figures compiled by the Labour Party, and leaked this week, found that 33 per cent of prison officers leaving their jobs in the past 12 months had been in the role for less than a year, up from 7 per cent in 2010.

The government had been publicly celebrating its success in recruiting a new generation of officers, but they should hold the champagne corks. The applause sounds rather hollow now.

Meanwhile the prison population just keeps on rising, as the number and length of custodial sentences awarded creeps upwards too. Almost a third of indictable offences carried a custodial term in 2017, and the average term spent in jail is 16 months.

Prisons are at breaking point, and the pressure they are under – due to both a lack of funding and now clearly of experience too – has led to big mistakes. A report published this week found that hundreds of sex offenders had been released from HMP Dartmoor despite posing a public risk, a result of “unplanned” release. That such an event can occur, and multiple times, demonstrates the extent to which control over the business of rehabilitation has been lost. Damningly, many of these men – who, despite their troubling crimes, should be recognised as vulnerable as well as potentially dangerous – were allowed to leave prison despite their release leaving them homeless.

Yet, this is not the full story. If you think things are bad inside prison, take a look at what’s going on outside. It’s not just prison officers buckling under the pressure, the probation service is also nearing the point of collapse.

Private companies drafted in to manage offenders in the community, and paid by results to do this, have failed utterly in their task.

Some three years ago, the probation service was split in two. The government-run National Probation Service continued to manage the most high-risk offenders, those who have committed very serious crimes or who are judged to pose a serious and ongoing risk to the wellbeing of others. And despite being streamlined, and losing a lot of its staff through redundancy, it has been assessed as continuing to do a good job. That in itself should not prompt significant celebration; it is, surely, the least we can expect from a functioning government, that it is able to protect its population from danger and exploitation.

The privatised part of the system, however, is made up of community rehabilitation companies – private organisations who bid for the work and are paid according to their achievements – who look after those offenders who are considered to pose a “low” or a “medium” risk. Their key task is to support their rehabilitation and prevent reoffending; to move former criminals on to new, positive, productive lives.

There are 21 of these companies in operation. So far, only two have managed to cut the reoffending rate. The latest assessment of their work has been damning: Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, said staff at the CRCs – who are inexperienced, as a huge number of long-standing probation officers took redundancy or retirement when the service split in two – are doing a bad job of managing their caseloads. Too often, communication with their clients was taking place by telephone, with little effort to build the supportive relationships that could turn lives around.

Payment by results means these failing CRCs could make yet more staff cuts, with worse outcomes for their charges – and for the communities in which they live. Payment by results is all very well in manufacturing, for example, but when those measurable results are the health and wellbeing of our society, it isn’t just logistically challenging but also extremely high risk.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the way that some crimes are categorised. At the point of privatisation, women’s charities warned that those convicted of domestic violence may fall under the category of “low” or “medium” risk – even though it is well known that domestic violence can escalate very suddenly. That put them under the care of less experienced officers, who operate a lighter touch approach. There is little recognition in the system for the fact that the risk posed by someone under the probation service can wax and wane. How can an officer possibly know that this risk level is shifting if they have so little face-to-face contact with them? Two woman, remember, are killed by their partner or former partner every week in England and Wales.

The rapid decline in the quality of the probation service has created a dangerous cycle of neglect, where criminals who are not properly supported both pose a higher risk to the community and are also more likely to seriously reoffend – which leads to a further conviction, which then (thanks to rising incarceration rates) leads to a sentence, and yet more pressure on the buckling prison system.

The government admits, in its own statistics, that more than a third of offenders now have what it describes as “long criminal careers”. That situation is untenable.

In managing the post-prison lives of violent and dangerous criminals, the government, ironically, has proved it can do something well for itself. Too bad it is still so seduced by the whiff of profit that it’s willing to cast aside our most vulnerable in pursuit of ideology over success.

--oo00oo--

Penelope Gibbs and Transform Justice have produced a report on Domestic Violence. There was a time when you'd expect the probation voice to be prominent in such a discussion, but it seems no longer:-

Love, fear and control — does the criminal justice system reduce domestic abuse?  

Executive Summary

In my view the criminal justice system is a very blunt tool to address domestic abuse. Disposals which assist perpetrators in addressing issues which lead to domestic abuse are more likely to meet needs of all parties, including complainants, than the stress and uncertainty of the criminal process. (defence lawyer) 

I think that the whole system should work better. I don’t like the idea of just a slap on the wrist and victims feeling unprotected and perpetrators feeling like they have impunity and that there are no consequences, etc. On the other hand, I’m sort of against the whole criminal justice system – I think it does a really, really bad job. (magistrate) 

Where officers are not arresting and attempting to charge perpetrators, domestic abuse victims are not being properly protected, and criminals are not being brought to justice. (police inspectorate)

Domestic abuse is an immensely contentious area. Campaigners, police and victims agree they want to stop it, but not how this can be achieved. Some are fatalistic about the chances of changing the behaviour of those who abuse, and want all efforts focussed on furthering gender equality, supporting victims and imprisoning perpetrators. Others believe we can only reduce abuse through reforming perpetrators. 

The recent government consultation on combatting domestic abuse focussed on an expansion of restrictive civil orders and on prosecution, conviction and harsher sentences. But the College of Policing says there is no evidence that criminal sanctions stop abusers abusing. What's more, harsher sentences are associated with higher rates of reoffending. So criminal sanctions punish, but don’t help victims in the long term. 

This argument against increased sanctions is common amongst many justice reform campaigners. What complicates matters in domestic abuse cases is the complex emotional backdrop. Victims often love the perpetrators, who may be their husband or their child, and don’t want to destroy their relationship with them by involving outside agencies. This creates tension between respecting victims’ wishes and using criminal law. While everyone wants abuse to stop, views differ about how to do it. 

But if criminal sanctions don’t work well and restrictive civil orders are of limited value, what does reduce domestic abuse and the harm it wreaks? Everyone agrees that victims need more support to stay safely in their own homes or to be rehoused (if they want to), to report abuse and to leave abusive relationships. But opinions are divided as to what else is worth doing. Some are fatalistic and feel that it is not worth spending money on perpetrator programmes – that the evidence shows they don’t work because abusers are entrenched and manipulative. But others say that behaviour change is possible, with the right programmes and the right incentives. In fact there is good evidence from England and elsewhere that some perpetrator programmes do have significant success in stopping abusers continuing to abuse, and in improving relationships. And it's clear that many victims’ greatest desire is for the abuse to stop and their perpetrators to get help. In one study over half the victims interviewed wanted their perpetrators to be arrested, but most did not want their partner to be prosecuted. Instead, they wanted to “teach him a lesson” and to send an important symbolic message.

This report highlights problems with the current criminal justice response to domestic abuse cases, and outlines the interventions available, the evidence (or lack of) on their impact, and the next steps required to reduce abuse. High attrition rate in domestic abuse cases continues to be a concern. Scepticism around the use of out of court responses such as community resolutions, cautions and restorative justice means their role is potentially underestimated. The government’s proposals to expand use of the domestic violence protection order is unlikely to make a positive impact. Instead, we need to work out whether all commonly used perpetrator programmes work and expand those that do. 

Some abusers need to be imprisoned to protect current and future victims. But we cannot lock up every abuser and throw away the key. We need to stop throwing money at “solutions”, like short prison sentences, court fines and ASBO-like orders, which don’t reduce abuse, and focus instead on supporting victims and on behaviour change. Behaviour change takes time, skilled facilitators and the best of evidence of what approaches work. If we focus on getting that right, we’ll save a generation of victims – partners, family members and children - from abuse.