NPS and Vetting

A reader raises the following questions and I think the issue is well worth re-visiting:-  

Vexed about Vetting!

Is anyone else concerned about the direction from NPS to comply with police vetting? It seems the Probation unions haven't had much of any interest to say about this but I might have missed something?

We have received an email this week saying we must complete this process and give consent for the intrusive police checks prior to being issued with any laptop. To be clear, I couldn't care less whether I have a laptop or not, but I think it's a sneaky way of getting us to comply with vetting.

This issue has been rumbling on for several years in my office. Initially volunteers were sought but nobody did! We have been given very little information about why we need to comply, just some vague notion around access to visor. I think if I was given a full explanation as to why it's suddenly required after 15 years working as a PO, I could make a more informed decision about allowing access to mine and my families personal data?

I was one of those who completed the training for visor at least 5 years ago and at that time we were told it would only be accessed by a small number of staff. In fact it never came to anything and it became something Mappa staff dealt with. The question of access in the future still remains unclear. I'm struggling to believe the police would allow access to visor via laptops.

There are two main issues for me, firstly I don't agree with being forced to supply personal data about my myself unless I choose to do so and I don't believe I should supply my family's information without their consent. Secondly, I see this as a change to my terms and conditions? and I accept that the organisation can do this, but I am also aware that there is a process that needs to be followed to do so. To make matters worse rumours abound about what will happen to those who fail?

I presume that staff in other areas who have received laptops have already complied? I would be interested to hear the views of others.

--oo00oo--

This issue was covered in Guest Blog 67 from 16th Ocober 2017 entitled Whitewashing the Probation Service:-    

The second thing that irks me is Vetting. I understand the need for CRB checks, DBS checks and all that sort of stuff, but this process has taken such an intrusive form with the implementation of Vetting to police standards. For those that haven’t had the privilege yet, according to the long since implemented PI 03/2014, while we were preoccupied, this means:

“Once staff transition to the NPS, they will be subject to the same vetting checks and requirements as other HQ personnel. Where NPS staff apply to move to other NOMS HQ and prison locations they will be subject to a full security vetting check. If NPS staff move to another role within NPS, vetting will only be required if they are subject to a higher level of vetting for the post. This will be a minimum level of Enhanced Check 2, but may be higher dependant on the level of risk and type of work undertaken.”

Now you may be thinking “well I’m not changing role at the moment so I can file this PI in the trash with all the other important NPS instructions”. Well you can’t because our probation directors and unions have allowed Vetting to be forced upon us. Firstly, Vetting now replaces CRB/DBS checks now we’re part of the (un)civil service. Secondly, all ‘offender management’ staff are required to use the police Visor database as a “reasonable management instruction”, and that’s whether to want or need to use it or not. For this privilege we all must be vetted first, and the Vetting itself is a “reasonable management instruction” too.

“ViSOR users are now subject to additional Vetting requirements by the police who as data owners require NOMS staff to undergo Non Police Personnel Vetting (NPPV) at level 2 or 3 depending on access rights.” PI 03/2014.

So there we have it, even though we don’t need Visor and it is not necessary for all probation staff to have access to what is actually a piss-poor database. The probable truth is that we’re being vetted simply because police officers and prison officers are vetted, and the Ministry of Justice probably see it as a way of further sidelining probation and speeding up our extinction. If any of you, like me, have been through this process already you’ll know how intrusive, stressful and worrying it actually is, and that you can fail it.

The minimum level of Enhanced Check 2 that will being forced upon us includes PNC and local police intelligence checks, checks on other non-conviction databases and Special Branch for applicant, spouse/partner and co-residents (including parents and siblings); military and Professional Standards checks on the applicant if required; Credit Reference checks on the applicant, including history of credit card refusal, debts and CCJ’s. I’ve seen a circular stating this may adversely affect a small number of staff but I think this could affect a significant number of probation staff, some with past criminal records, some with family members or spouses with criminal records, and some with bad credit histories past and present.

So what do the unions say? Not much, well this is Ian Lawrence’s (Napo General Secretary) position on Vetting;

“Unless the reason for failure of vetting is such that a disciplinary case is warranted then no member of staff will lose their employment as a result of vetting failure. Anyone failing the vetting process would be redeployed or have a restricted caseload or other adjustments to allow them to continue to work”.

I’m going to end by saying that the Probation Service used to represent rehabilitation and change. Our wealth was largely in the diversity of our staff group which included people from all walks of life, ranging from rich-gits and Tory-boys sitting next to ex-soldiers, ex-miners and those from beyond the fringes of regular society, including the poor, the underclass, recovered addicts, reformed gang members, and the like. This all now ends because once again our probation bosses have bowed to the will of the Ministry of Justice, this time putting police procedures and prison logic over probation staff and practice. I wonder if Vetting is why the ex-offender mentors and volunteers have disappeared from the NPS?

On a side but related note, the recent David Lammy Review told us that certain groups are more likely to be ‘over-policed’, stopped and searched, prosecuted and therefore have criminal records. He concluded as part of his solution that the inequality should be addressed and even that criminal records should be sealed to help former offenders combat discrimination and find work.

I watched our Prime Minister vow to end the racism and discrimination that certain groups face in every walk of life, including the CJS and workplace. I am sure the Ministry of Justice will be tasked to get its house in order because of the bias and discrimination in the justice system. While the MoJ and the UK in general is trying to achieve what it couldn’t dating from the MacPherson (Stephen Lawrence) Report and before, the NPS will be simultaneously dismissing probation officers for their circumstances and mistakes of yesteryear.

Sadly, I know many probation staff of all backgrounds that have past criminal histories, criminal family members and financial problems, mainly due to bad life choices, and in some cases stemming from the earlier forms of the discrimination and disadvantage described in the Lammy Review. I couldn’t think of anyone better placed to support those on probation facing similar experiences, and to help balance our unfair justice system, but now that’s only if they are able to get past Vetting. With the Lammy Review in mind, if those adversely affected by Vetting are disproportionately originating from working-class family backgrounds, ethnic minorities or marginalised communities then this could end up being seen as a ‘whitewashing’ of the Probation Service.

Thanks for reading.

Probation Officer
Too many years to retire

--oo00oo--

There were two relevant comments:-

VISOR (Violent and Sex Offenders Register) does require enhanced security access controls (usually available behind two locked doors), controlled printing etc. If an offender manager does need to access VISOR they shouldn't need any more security checking than they currently have (as agreed during its original rollout to Probation). Access should be controlled with system access control measures and controlled user management. As you say the strength of probation is the variety of backgrounds of Probation Officers enabling empathy and understanding with true rehabilitation measures. Perhaps this concept of polication and prisonation (thereby losing the third pillar of the triangle of offender management and rehabilitation) should be raised with the Judicial Review.

*****
Our VISOR terminal & security-cleared operative are in the same office as all staff; and the terminal is linked to a shared network printer. Presumably if you pick up the wrong sheet of paper a sniper on the neighbouring rooftop will take you out.

Unconditional Love

I saw this story some weeks ago and wanted to publish it, but other events took over. It reminds me of the Cat A prison I used to regularly visit that had a huge aviary in the visits area, now long gone sadly. It's not rocket science that a way to help heal emotionally damaged people can be through interaction with animals, particularly dogs, who give unconditional love.   

How these homeless dogs are giving inmates ‘new purpose in life’

LUNENBURG COUNTY, Va. -- You don't often hear of celebration happening inside a prison, but a group of inmates at the Lunenburg Correctional Center is celebrating a special milestone. As of this week, 50 dogs have been adopted through Fetch a Cure's Pixie's Pen Pals since June 2016. That's when Counselor Kristal Winstead became the program's liaison at the prison.

"It softens people, I mean how could you look at that little face and those big brown eyes and not ease up a little," she said. Many of the prisoners have been sentenced to serve decades behind bars for a variety of crimes. "The prison environment in general, it can be a bit dismal," said Shaddai Omalara, who enrolled in the program nearly three years ago. "Sixteen years of being in prison, sometimes your emotions shut down."

A dozen of the men at the Lunenburg facility were selected to be part of the Pen Pals program. "There was just a job opening and I put in an application, came to an interview. They asked me a few questions. I told them how I felt and I guess I was the best candidate at the time," said Shane Cubbage, who joined the program three years ago and has been incarcerated for 15 years.

They have to pass a series of tests and maintain a certain status at the prison, before they get paired up with a shelter dog in need of guidance. "The traditional shelter setting is so stressful for the dogs and a lot of them just shut down. But having the chance to have all the one-on-one time and attention and the behavior training and the socialization, it brings these dogs out of their shells," Fetch a Cure Pen Pals program manager Emily Clanton said.

It's a rare kind of rehabilitation for both man and beast. "I requested to come to this institution specifically for this program here," Omalara said.

"This is a completely rewarding experience," said Michael Ingram, who is about halfway through serving his 20-year sentence. "I mean we get to have a new purpose in life training these dogs." Tamale, Silverbell, and Tennessee are three of the six dogs currently living inside the Lunenburg prison. "They get to live with us in the cells," Omalara said. "They live in their own little cage, but a lot of times we like to let them come out and interact with us."

Each canine shares a small cell with its primary handler and secondary handler, which can get a bit cramped. "The kennel does take up a lot of space, but you learn to maneuver pretty well," Cubbage said. Though the setup can be a tight squeeze, the handlers say the close quarters are crucial. "We get to work on training in the cell. We get to interact with them 24 hours a day. It's such a beautiful thing," said Omalara.

Coordinators of the Pen Pals program say the training takes a lot of dedication. "We had one here named Rusty that had seizures and one of the handlers would actually have to hold Rusty until the seizure subsided and the other handler would have to time it," Winstead said. "I mean to me that’s phenomenal." The prisoners and pups also meet with Fetch a Cure trainers once a week as part of the program. "It`s not just a normal prison job," Clanton said. "You're saving these dogs' lives."

During the meetings, the teams show off what they have accomplished and set goals for how to move forward with training. "It gives them a sense of responsibility and self worth, I mean some of them have been locked up since they were 17 or 18 years old, so they've grown up in prison," said Winstead.

The trainers use the Canine Good Citizen program, recognized as the gold standard for dog behavior, to assess whether the pups are ready to be adopted. The evaluation consists of 10 objectives including coming when called, sitting and lying down on command, accepting a friendly stranger, and reacting appropriately to another dog.

"They call him bulletproof. That’s a nickname for him. They use him for therapy dogs as far as other dogs," said Kevin Green about his walker hound partner, Tennessee. Green was first chosen for the Pen Pals program at Lunenburg in 2010.

The test can take weeks and sometimes months to pass, depending on the dog. A lab mix named Lucky Duck just found her forever home this week, after spending 10 months with her handlers at the prison.

"They might have been trash to somebody else but they end up being a treasure to somebody, you know another family," Winstead said. "This is a second chance for them and I’ve always said that. Just like these guys get their second chance, these dogs are getting a second chance,"

Some of the inmates say they can connect on a deeper level with the dogs because of their backgrounds. "They come from broken homes. They may have been stray dogs and a lot of the experiences these dogs went through, we can kind of relate to that," said Omalara. "A lot of these dogs come from very very bad situations, hoarding situations. You wouldn’t believe how many people just say I don’t want them anymore," Winstead said.

The prisoners say it can definitely be hard to see their four-legged companions move on, after they've transformed from a shelter dog to man's best friend. "He looked back with his big bug eyes like what are you doing to me," Cubbage said. "In prison, we try to be macho and stuff like that but when you see them leave, we definitely get a bit emotional," said Omalara.

But giving the dogs a new lease on life helps the inmates find their own. "That's the most rewarding experience for us, to see a dog get a second chance in life," Omalara said. Winstead has also created a scrapbook called the "Happy Tail Book" with updates on the dogs in their forever homes.

All families interested in adopting the dogs come to the Lunenburg Correctional Center for a meet-and-greet. Inmates say they love that part of the process because they can see the impact of their hard work. "It feels so good to be able to give back to the community and give back to people," Green said. "I see a lot of the families when they come up here, how grateful they are, and how pleased they really are to have one of these dogs."
​
​Silverbell got to go home with her new family on Thursday. A family stopped and fell in love with Tennessee in his first week at the prison, but he will be staying for a full month of training before he is officially adopted. Two new shelter dogs will be rotated into the program and brought to Lunenburg Correctional Center by the end of the week.

The Academics Speak Out 5

Yes, another helping of academic evidence submitted to the Justice Committee:-  

Written evidence from Dr John Deering and Professor Martina Feilzer (TRH0018) 

Submitted by: 

Dr John Deering, University of South Wales 

Professor Martina Feilzer, Bangor University 

Our submission is concerned with point 7 of the Inquiry Terms of Reference but may touch on aspects of the other topics. 7 When should there be a review of the future of the Transforming Rehabilitation model and the long-term plan for delivering probation services? 

We feel that this ToR needs to go beyond the limits of ‘when’ there should be a review and to encompass a wider range of issues than the managerial and practice-based areas outlined in ToR 1 – 6. Clearly, these are of vital importance, but we are of the view that the Inquiry should also take into account: a) the ‘corporate’ values of probation organisations and the values of practitioners and b) the legitimacy of probation organisations and probation practice post Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) in the eyes of staff. In our view, values and questions of legitimacy have always had and will continue to have a significant impact upon practice and service delivery as they relate to the basic motivations held by those within probation about why they do the job and to the principles, aims and purposes of probation. 

With regards to the question posed directly above, we are of the view that a review into the future of the Transforming Rehabilitation changes is urgently needed and long overdue. 

This is due to three main conclusions from research into probation values and the legitimacy of probation practice, namely: 

1. The values of Government, probation organisations and practitioners have been diverging and that the emerging tensions have now reached crisis point. 

2. That the self-legitimacy of probation practitioners is under threat which will have a long-term effect on probation practice. 

3. A review of probation needs to consider whether the current organisational structure is ‘fit for purpose’. 

Probation’s ‘corporate’ values 

The debate around probation’s corporate values and those of practitioners has emerged and developed over the past 30 years or so and one issue that has come to the fore is the increasing divergence between corporate (governmental) aims for the probation service and the views of practitioners. 

From approximately the mid-1980s successive governments have become increasingly involved in the probation service and have followed policies aimed at moving it from its roots in social work with those who have committed offences (with an aim of rehabilitation) to one where, whilst rehabilitation is still retained, it has a much reduced role, being superseded in importance by law enforcement, risk assessment, managerialism, monitoring, and punishment (Deering 2016; Newburn 2003; Raynor 2012). One significant point in this process was the 1991 Criminal Justice Act which abolished the requirement for probation officers to ‘advise, assist and befriend’ those they supervised and changed the probation order from an alternative to a sentence and a chance to reform to ‘punishment in the community’, a sentence subject to judicial punishment for failures to comply with the terms of an Order. Also as a result of the Act, new sets of National Standards laid out clear and strict standards for levels of reporting etc. that limited probation officer discretion. Alongside the move to a more punishment-base system came the ‘rise of risk’, which required practitioners to assess those coming before the courts in terms of their risk of re-offending and risk of harm (Kemshall, 1996). The purpose of such assessments included the facilitation of the notion of ‘resources following risk’ (in this case risk of harm) which presaged the increased role of monitoring and surveillance by the service of higher risk of harm individuals and the related reduction in service afforded to the service’s more ‘traditional’ supervisee, the higher risk of re-offending individual who did not pose significant risk of harm (Deering 2011). 

These changes revealed an increasing tendency in government to place less faith in rehabilitation and more with a limited monitoring and punishment role and a Conservative Home Secretary, Michael Howard abolished social work training for practitioners, seeking to recruit ex-armed forces personnel in order to ‘toughen up’ practice. In this period, a merger with the prison service and the ending of a supervisory function were also mooted (Deering 2016). Whilst the Labour Government elected in 1997 restored professional training, it was not based within social work, but had a narrower focus based of ‘effectiveness and reducing re-offending’. 

Increased management of practice by government perhaps peaked with the creation of the National Probation Service for England and Wales in 2001. The new service had five main aims including the punishment of offenders and the protection of the public; rehabilitation was placed last of the five (Home Office 2001). Within a few years of the setting up of the new service, the government created the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) as a result of the Carter Report which considered the marketisation of the service under ‘contestability’ (Carter 2003). NOMS developed a commissioning model which along with the Offender Management Act 2007, laid the foundations for Transforming Rehabilitation (TR). 

Practitioner values 

Until the mid-1980s, in very broad terms, probation’s organisational values might be seen to be ‘traditional’ in the sense of being humanitarian, allied to social work, and seeking the rehabilitation of those under supervision via the provision of ‘help’ in its broadest sense. This aimed to ameliorate a range of personal, social and economic problems faced by supervisees that were seen as underlying most offending. There had also been debates around the efficacy of ‘treatment’ models of rehabilitation and arguments were made for a more collaborative problem-solving approach (Bottoms & McWilliams 1979) but for the most part probation practice followed a case work paradigm (Vanstone 2004) based upon social work training. In the mid-1990s, Williams (1995) considered probation values to be: opposition to custody; opposition to oppression; commitment to justice for offenders; commitment to the client’s right to confidentiality and openness; valuing of clients as unique and self-determining individuals; aim to ensure that victims and potential victims are protected; belief that ‘purposeful professional relationships can facilitate change in clients’ (Williams 1995: 12- 20). In a similar vein, Napo (2006) published its own view of professional values, arguing that individuals have the ability to change. It set out the following values to which it was committed: respect and trust when working with perpetrators and victims; open and fair treatment for all; empowerment of individuals in order to reduce the risk of harm to themselves and others; promotion of equality and anti-discrimination; promotion of the rights of both perpetrators and victims; building on individuals’ strengths as a vehicle for change (Napo 2006). 

However, whilst these values represent statements of belief, there is empirical evidence that reveals practitioners holding such views. Moreover, evidence suggests that practitioners have seen these values coming under pressure over the past few decades, something that they felt Transforming Rehabilitation would exacerbate, perhaps irrevocably so. Studies (e.g. Annison et al. 2008; Deering 2010; Deering 2011; Mawby & Worrall 2013) have consistently shown that practitioners have joined the probation service to work empathically with individuals experiencing a range of social and personal problems that underlie their offending. They desire to ‘make a difference’ with individuals who are seen as capable of change within an organisation able to assist such change. However, studies have also shown practitioners becoming concerned at top-down changes to the values of the organisation as outlined above, which have put their professional values under pressure. These included an increasingly pervasive managerialism which promotes procedures ahead of practice and outcomes, an emphasis on law enforcement and punishment. Moreover, whilst acknowledging that the assessment and management of risk are a vital and central element of probation practice, there was a feeling that (other than with high risk of harm individuals) the best way to protect the public was to assist in rehabilitative behavioural change, rather than a more reductive surveillance role. As a result, studies showed values adapting to some of the new government agenda, but also to a schism between the views of government, probation organisations, and those of practitioners about the aims of purposes of probation, what constitutes ‘quality’ probation practice, the process of enforcement and other matters (Deering 2011; Farrow 2004; Mawby & Worrall 2013; Robinson & McNeill 2004; Robinson et al. 2014). Moreover, practitioners were describing how they ‘adapted’ government policy to enable them to continue to practice in a manner that fitted with their own values. In other words, some degree of resistance to changing organisational values was emerging (Deering 2011; Mawby & Worrall 2013). 

Regarding the government’s proposals for Transforming Rehabilitation, we received over 1300 responses to an online survey conducted in March/April 2014 with probation staff about the prospects for probation following the changes (Deering & Feilzer 2015). The survey revealed feelings of anger and betrayal about the changes, linked to the aims of probation and values but also the prospect (at the time) of a marketised and partially privatised service. Most respondents felt that the service should be wholly maintained within the public sector and that the private sector (and to a lesser degree the third sector) had different priorities, aims and values related to the demands of a commercial operation. Many respondents feared for the future of the service and their own position within it. Clearly, the split of probation and the outsourcing of CRCs raised for practitioners some fundamental questions about the ethics of private companies making profits from crime, victimisation, and punishment. Furthermore, recent ethnographic research which looked at the formation of a CRC from the inside, identified a number of themes that are important to the discussion here. These include separation and loss, status anxiety, loyalty and trust, and liberation and innovation. Authors concluded that the notion of ‘liminality’ – of being caught in transition between the old and the new – the ‘public and the outsourced’, was the most fundamental and important theme (Robinson et al. 2016). 

Thus, we argue that the value systems of government, probation organisations, and practitioners have been diverging to some degree and this has significantly accelerated since TR. We would suggest that this divergence will lead to a legitimacy crisis for probation practitioners and we turn to this point now. 

Legitimacy of Probation – organisation and practice 

Here, we would like to highlight a possible long-term effect on probation practitioners’ sense of the legitimacy of their practice. We consider this a vital element of successful criminal justice agencies. Legitimacy is also important in terms of the views of people and organisations outside probation and of those supervised by the NPS and CRCs and TR poses challenges for both. However, our concern here is the impact of TR on the self-legitimacy felt by practitioners. 

Bradford and Quinton (2014) developed ‘correlates of self-legitimacy’ when studying the self-legitimacy of police officers which comprised: respondents’ confidence in their own authority and their sense that they occupy a special position in society; the extent to which police officers feel that they are enabled and supported by their organisation and that they internalise the values represented by their organisation and identify with the organisation; a shared group identity. We adapted these for the probation service and concluded that the split of the probation service into the NPS and the CRC had a significant effect on some probation practitioners’ sense of self-legitimacy, which appears to have been severely disrupted. Moreover, some respondents to our survey were convinced that their concern for the legitimacy of probation practice would be shared by those under probation supervision and might thus affect levels of compliance with court orders. 

Our research suggested that practitioners had grave concerns about the ethics of the CRCs and they were frustrated by a perception of an erosion of common organisational values. There was apprehension about having two different organisations involved in probation – one ‘real’ probation service and the other a ‘second class probation’, a fear that was also identified in further work in a CRC (Robinson et al. 2016). Indeed, Robinson et al. (2016) noted that probation practitioners thought the CRC to be ‘socially invisible’ without a clear identity and that practitioners felt a strain on their previous identity within the ‘honourable profession’ of probation due to being ‘tainted’ by perceived private sector values and priorities. 

Research on the impact of restructuring on both the CRCs and the NPS by Kirton and Guillaume (2015) argued that probation practitioners feel that TR has de-professionalised the service and that stress levels are high, due to higher workloads, job insecurity, less autonomy and reduced opportunities for training and progression. Since the introduction of TR, both CRCs and NPS have seen an exodus of experienced staff and Kirton and Guillaume (2015) suggested that many respondents in their study were considering leaving the service and that a further attrition is likely. 

More recently a number of HMIP reports into probation performance after TR have pointed to concerns about practical challenges caused by increased workloads, flawed CRC delivery models, concerns over the quality of PSRs, supervision arrangements, breach procedures, sentencers’ trust in community sentences and Serious Further Offences (SFOs) (HMIP 2016a; HMIP 2016b; Panorama 2017). 

Conclusion 

In our view the cumulative effect of the changes to probation’s corporate values, the divergence of values between practitioners and government and the recent dramatic changes to governance and organisational arrangements, may have already started to affect practitioners’ sense of self-legitimacy. This, in turn may have a long-term corrosive effect upon probation practice and its wider legitimacy. An important aspect of self-legitimacy is the extent to which practitioners feel that they are enabled and supported by their organisation and that they internalise the values represented by their organisation (Bradford and Quinton 2014). In our view, the current situation means that the self-legitimacy of many practitioners is, at the very least, in some doubt. This in turn may lower morale and foster discontent with the quality services provided to those under supervision. If practitioners come to feel that the service provided to supervisees is not what it had previously been, this may have a negative effect on their feelings of being the holders of legitimate authority. 

There is evidence to suggest that practice is already changing and that probation provision is becoming increasingly fragmented with clear differences emerging between NPS and CRCs, different CRCs owners, and different regions (HMIP 2016a). In our view, considerable damage has been done to some individual probation staff’s sense of being a member of a ‘collective of professionals doing an important job well’ (Ugelvik 2016).

The Academics Speak Out 4

Once more a lull seems to have descended upon the probation world. We all know that normally precedes a storm, so whilst we await the inevitable, here's another helping of evidence supplied to Bob Neill's TR inquiry from the academic world:-  

Written evidence from Dr Lawrence Burke, Dr Matthew Millings and Mr Stuart Taylor (TRH0053) 

As researchers we have been involved in two research projects considering the implementation of the Transformation Rehabilitation reforms. The first, operational between March 2015 and November 2016, was an ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) funded research project into the impact of the changes upon the probation workforce in one Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) case study area. This covered the period immediately before the creation of the CRC until immediately the transfer into new ownership. The second project is considering the implementation of the ‘Through the gate’ arrangements in a large CAT B resettlement prison. This project began in 2015 and is ongoing. Given the scale of the changes brought about by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, it is difficult to present a measured assessment of the impact of the changes as it is unlikely to be some time before the efficacy of the new working models can be ascertained. It was clear though that the early stages of implementation have been marked by a number of significant challenges/concerns that are reflected in the scope of the Justice Committees terms of reference for the enquiry. Whilst it is acknowledged that these observations are only drawn from one site of delivery, reports by the NAO and HMI Prisons and Probation would suggest that they are not confined to the area observed. We have however limited our submission to those areas of the inquiry which we believe are most pertinent to our research findings. 

3. How effective have Government measures been in addressing issues arising from the division of responsibility between NPS and CRCs in the delivery of probation services? 

It has been clear that the organisational changes to the probation service have undoubtedly destabilised what was, even by the government’s own findings, an established and well-functioning organisation. In our observations and discussions with staff in the CRC case study area, it was evident that many had found the organisational restructuring brought about by Transforming Rehabilitation to be extremely challenging on both a personal and professional level. 

Nearly all of those staff interviewed expressed the view that the organisational ‘split’ between the NPS and the CRC had been the most damaging aspect of the change process and in some cases had fractured long-standing and collaborative relationships. This was not helped by what was seen as an extremely rushed process of implementation that was perceived by many within the organisation to have been driven mainly by political and ideological reasons. 

We identified staff experiencing feelings of loss on a number of levels. These included the physical loss of former colleagues as they were split between the two organisations and the loss of human capital through voluntary redundancies. For those in the CRCs, there was the loss of a public sector ethos and the loss of authority and legitimacy that many staff felt derived from being employed by the former Probation Trust and their role within the criminal justice system. This latter point is relevant to Question 2 (i) in that it was clear that sentencers in the local area studied had been given limited information and training on the impact of the reforms and were initially distrustful of the motives of the CRC and tended to direct their enquiries to the publically funded NPS. It remains to be seen as to whether or not these are a natural consequence of such radical reform or indicative of more systemic weaknesses in the new arrangements. 

We concluded that probation staff appeared to be in a liminal state caught between the aspirations and the realities of the reforms and at the time of writing this would still appear to be the case. The current situation in which, even after three years, the new operational models have yet to be fully implemented has caused further uncertainty. 

Whilst CRC staff have generally welcomed the move towards more flexible working models in the community there still remains considerable scepticism that the main driver behind this approach is to achieve financial savings rather than delivering quality interventions. The new owner’s energies appear to have been consumed by ensuring that they were meeting their contractual responsibilities. The TR reforms were promoted as a mechanism to promote innovation but certainly in the locality studied, the emphasis on implementing the reforms had in fact undermined some innovative projects especially those developed around relationship building adopting a desistance approach. On the other hand, the active involvement of service users in shaping service delivery was a welcome development. As the new owners have (perhaps understandably) sought to streamline their management structures across several areas this has led to a loss of local identity and leadership. Senior managers at the local level often appeared to lack support and were sometimes caught between having to respond to local challenges and what appeared to be distant lines of accountability and responsibility. 

5. How can Through-the-Gate provision be improved so that prisoners get the right help before their release from prison and afterwards? 

Our research into the ‘Through the Gate’ provision in a local Cat B resettlement prison would suggest that this is one of weaker elements of the reforms. In many respects this was linked to long-standing problems within the prison which meant that the enthusiasm and commitment of staff was tempered with having to deliver their services in an environment that was not conducive to meaningful rehabilitation. 

On a practical level, we observed a duplication of services which in turn led to confusion for both prisoners and providers of services. The Basic Custody Screening Tool (BCST) seemed cumbersome and having to complete the process within such a short period of time meant that assessments were at best superficial or incomplete. Services within the prison did not appear to be integrated and this was compounded by a lack of communication between the provider commissioned by the CRC owners to provide services in the prison and CRC workers in the community (who appeared to have little or no contact during the custodial period). 

Many of the prisoners interviewed for this study thus saw the extension of postrelease supervision as merely an extension of monitoring rather than providing help and support. Staff complained that they were often expending scarce resources on prisoners who were unmotivated and resistant to change which brings into question the need to provide a universal resettlement service or at least better targeting to provide meaningful interventions to those most in need especially given the lack of community resources available to support the resettlement process. The lack of meaningful engagement only served to engender resentment among prisoners and frustration among those staff interviewed. 

Comments on organisational issues amongst those delivering Through-the –gate services centred upon the need for greater leadership and management, which in turn it was hoped would lead to enhanced communication, improved joined-up working practices and the removal of duplication, overlap and repetition. 

It was also deemed important to reconceptualise resettlement so that an offender’s path through the criminal justice system is seen as a resettlement journey. This included the need for further support for families (to prepare them for the release of their loved one) but also the use of mentoring, which both staff and inmates saw great value in but didn’t believe was being utilised.

Across both research projects and throughout the diversity of partner agencies and range of roles represented there was acknowledgement that, prior to Transforming Rehabilitation, the delivery of rehabilitation services was in need of change and renewal. Many recognised and valued good practices that have been developed through time, and in partnership. However, there was ready acceptance that in terms of developing innovative practice, engaging those sentenced to less than 12-months, and in constructing seamless support that developed within and beyond the prison estate work was required on organisational structures and operational approaches to realise these ambitions. In practice, the speed of the introduction of the Transforming Rehabilitation reform programme and the scale of the profound changes outlined created such uncertainty that it became challenging for partners to retain their focus on developing their practice provision. The lack of a clear operational rationale for the scale of change that has been pursued since September 2013 was often cited by individuals in justifying their anxiety around the short and medium term restructuring of the management of offenders. As a consequence, whilst there was an appetite for change, the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms as understood and experienced by staff have felt too imposed and having been developed without due attention to the professional judgement and expertise that exists within the sector. For staff from all organisations who’ve experienced change it is the concerns around the robustness of the vision for the practice landscape being sought, and the absence of a fully reasoned mandate for the engineering of such widespread reform that continue to add to permeate a transitional working culture characterised by uncertainty and insecurity. 

Dr Lawrence Burke, Professor in Criminal Justice,  

Dr Matthew Millings, Senior Lecturer in Criminal Justice,  

Mr Stuart Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Criminal Justice, 
Liverpool John Moores University. 

November 2017

Reflections on the Serious Violence Strategy

Here we have Rob Allen's considered take on Monday's government response to the recent wave of violent criminal behaviour in London:-

Deja Vu : Can the serious violence strategy learn from the past?

Back in 2002, when I was member of the Youth Justice Board, then Chair Lord Warner opened one of our meetings by saying he expected we were all considering resigning. The Prime Minister had called for young offenders to be taken – it might have been swept-off the streets in order to tackle an upsurge in mobile phone robberies. Our advice hadn’t been sought and Tony Blair’s approach didn’t sit well with our efforts to reduce the use of custody for young people. Warner persuaded us not to resign - every crisis is an opportunity was the line I think. We were vindicated in part by the fact that the Street Crime Initiative - developed in a series of COBRA meetings normally reserved for national emergencies – turned out to include prevention and treatment measures alongside enforcement. But at the outset and at its heart, was tough on crime rather than on the causes. Even Lord Woolf, the normally liberal Chief Justice was moved to issue a draconian guideline judgement on street robbery in its wake. 

Perhaps my experience back then, accounts for an initially positive reaction on my part to Amber Rudd’s Serious Violence Strategy. Much of the analysis of the problem which has come into tragic focus in recent weeks is basically sound. The Home Office may be a graveyard of liberal thinking, but this Home Secretary agrees with academics that “big shifts in crime trends tend to be driven by factors outside of the police’s control – like drug trends and markets, changes in housing and vehicle security.” Her approach to serious violence “is not solely focused on law enforcement, very important as that is, but depends on partnerships across a number of sectors such as education, health, social services, housing, youth services, and victim services.” So far so good.

The strategy recognises that key areas for reducing violence include “socio-economic improvements, strengthening ties to family, school and non-violent norms.” And for young people, early interventions are effective in reducing violent behaviour and “punitive activity is less effective than preventative support”. In reducing re-offending for all ages “Interventions focused on the establishment of cognitive or character-based skills and/or non-violent norms seem to be more effective than punitive interventions.” The strategy confirms too that “changes in the level of stop and search have only minimal effects – at best – on trends in violent crime, even when measured at the local level”. All this seems sensible and consistent with evidence. Ms Rudd even plans to hold an International Violent Crime Symposium to hear from international experts (yes experts) if she’s on the right track.

Where the strategy stops short of course is in putting in place the measures needed to meet the problems it identifies.

Take drugs. The strategy points out that drugs can drive up serious violence “indirectly, either by fuelling robberies to service drug dependence, or through violent competition between drug sellers. Grievances in illicit drug markets cannot be settled through legal channels, so participants may settle them violently. This can lead to escalation as dealers seek to portray themselves as excessively violent, and carry weapons, so as not to be cheated in the market.” Is there the slightest hint of finding different ways of regulating at least some drugs so that at least some disputes might be more peacefully resolved? No.

As for the much praised early intervention, a series of small scale targeted funding schemes hardly begin to compensate for the under resourcing of mainstream provision – whether mental health treatment or youth clubs, inflicted in the name of austerity. The strategy promotes diversion of various kinds but to what? The small beer offered here will continue to leave thousands of young people at risk of becoming victims or perpetrators of violence.

Police numbers are of course the strategy’s missing link. Like it or not the Street Crime Initiative did appear to show that “increased police resources do in fact lead to lower crime”. This strategy extols the virtues of hot spot policing but shifting onto PCCs responsibility for providing officers to do it, is simply bad faith.

On courts, probation and prisons, the strategy only goes so far. We can count ourselves fortunate that tougher sentencing for once takes a back seat. Given the state of the prison system, presumably the MoJ put their foot down about that. It’s good that violence in prison merits a place in the strategy and among the alphabet soup of initiatives to reduce it, the idea of trauma informed approaches looks a particularly good one.

But given that much serious violence is carried out by persistent offenders, why no mention of the cross-government group of senior Ministers, announced last month, which will work across all relevant departments to reduce re-offending. Presumably because it’s a MoJ rather than Home Office initiative. The latter will drive this strategy through a new Serious Violence Taskforce. But there will surely be benefits in David Gauke’s approach of targeting “prisoners and ex-offenders with the support they need to find a job, a home, to get help with debt, or to get treatment for a drug addiction or, a mental health issue”. Proper resettlement should be more central to what’s being proposed.

Rob Allen

Reform Has The Answer

Those with long memories of C-Nomis and the wasted £234million might find the following naively-gushing endorsement of the digital age by Reform generates more than a wry smile:-   

To cut reoffending, give prisons better information about their inmates

Only then will more rehabilitation take place

When it comes to protecting the public, information matters. In the decade to 2015, 505 prisoners were released from prison in error. One prisoner, Martynas Kupstys, was on remand but later convicted of murder in 2015. In another case, a prisoner was released after a mix-up with another inmate with the same surname.

These are extreme examples of how poor information can undermine prisons’ ability to keep the public safe. According to Ian Mulholland, former Director of Public Sector Prisons at the National Offender Management Service, “very often prison governors know almost nothing of the person remanded in custody.”

This month, David Gauke, Secretary of State for Justice, called for prisons to be “a route to a better life” through rehabilitation. The government estimates reoffending to cost the economy £15bn a year. Better information could help prisons and probation services, which work to integrate prisoners back in to society after custody, reduce this.

The first step is to understand offenders’ needs. Prisoners often face complex social, health and educational challenges which affect behaviour. According to Reform think tank research, prisoners are 130 times more likely to receive treatment for drug or alcohol abuse than the public, 3.5 times more likely to have a learning disability and 1.5 times more likely to suffer from mental ill health.

Access to information can enable prisons and probation services to tailor rehabilitation services to different offenders. For example, a rehabilitation pilot in Peterborough in 2010 used data to identify patterns that led to reoffending. For one offender, who had been imprisoned 150 times and displayed anti-social behaviour on the anniversary of his wife’s death, increased support around that date helped keep him out of prison. The pilot drew on 10 different services, such as employment services, mental health services and behavioural change support, to offer tailored rehabilitation.

Not only should this information be “relevant and recent,” in the words of Russ Trent, Governor of HMP Berwyn, but also easily accessible. Today, this means digital. As Katy Bourne, Police and Crime Commissioner for Sussex, argued last year: “We all depend on 21st century digital technology to communicate, shop and conduct everyday business, so why does the criminal justice system appear to be stuck in the 19th century?”

A new IT framework, with easy but secure access to relevant and recent information, could provide this, according to research by Reform. Elsewhere in the criminal justice system, the Crown Prosecution Service is working with police forces, the courts and judiciary to build a “Common Platform,” which includes a digital case-file system through which information and evidence is shared. The government could extend the information sharing element to prisons to provide governors with a better understanding of the needs of prisoners.

Basic information could help avoid the types of mistakes that have led to prisoners being released in error. Digital databases can be tied to research and evidence as to what works for reducing reoffending, enabling prison staff to link best practice to the characteristics of prisoners. In healthcare, IBM’s Watson, which can read 40m medical documents in 15 seconds and provide up-to-date medical knowledge to practitioners, offers a model that prisons could follow.

This would be a radically different prison environment. It would be one well-placed to meet Gauke’s aims to rehabilitate offenders. This could reduce the reoffending bill, but, most importantly, help protect the public from crime. Yesterday’s poor data sharing could be replaced by tomorrow’s rehabilitation revolution.

Reform’s Report, Crime and information: using data and technology to transform criminal-justice services, is available at www.reform.uk

Bears Crap in Woods - Shock!

The government has a problem. More murders are being committed in London than New York and the public is in danger of joining up some dots - cuts to the police = more violent crime. Alarm bells are ringing at No 10 and some urgent 'spinning' is required. By the end of the day home secretary Amber Rudd will have delivered; trouble is, her department seems to think differently. This in the Guardian:-    

Police cuts ‘likely contributed’ to rise in violent crime, leaked report reveals

Leaked Home Office documents undermine Amber Rudd’s claim that police cuts were not to blame for increase in violent offending

Government cuts to the police “may have encouraged” violent offenders and have “likely contributed” to a rise in serious violent crime, leaked Home Office documents have revealed. The documents cast doubt on claims by the home secretary, Amber Rudd, on Sunday that cuts to the police were not to blame for rising violence. The Home Office said it would not comment on leaked documents.

Rudd will on Monday launch a strategy aimed at tackling serious violent crime, which officials and ministers have been working on for months. The launch comes after a week of shooting and stabbing deaths pushed the homicide rate in London to more than 50 lives lost this year. The home secretary believes the strategy will mark a change in the approach to tackling serious violence, placing an equal emphasis on prevention and diverting youngsters from violence, as well as on strong law enforcement.

But the row over funding for the police threatens to overshadow the government’s new anti-violence strategy. Since the Conservatives came to power in 2010 police budgets have been cut, and officer numbers have fallen by more than 20,000. Labour and the police have claimed funding reductions have jeopardised public safety. Home Office statistics show the number of police officers fell from 143,734 in March 2010 to 123,142 in March 2017.

Figures released in November showed a 20% annual rise in gun, knife and serious violent crime across England and Wales, even as the crime survey estimated there had been a 9% overall drop in crime. The Home Office said “traditional crime” nationwide had dropped by almost 40% since 2010.

As part of the preparations for the new strategy, which will include tougher powers to seize acid from people who cannot provide a reason for carrying it, and a crackdown on so-called zombie knives, officials in February prepared a document on the factors behind the rise in violent crime, marked as “official – sensitive”. The document is entitled Serious violence; latest evidence on the drivers. A section on police resources says: “Since 2012/3, weighted crime demand on the police has risen, largely due to growth in recorded sex offences. At the same time officers’ numbers have fallen by 5% since 2014.

“So resources dedicated to serious violence have come under pressure and charge rates have dropped. This may have encouraged offenders. “[It is] unlikely to be the factor that triggered the shift in serious violence, but may be an underlying driver that has allowed the rise to continue.” A highlighted box emphasises that point: “Not the main driver but has likely contributed.” Another section, entitled Implications for strategy, says: “The implications are challenging. There is good evidence that increasing resources dedicated to targeting hot-spots and prolific offenders can be effective, but there are several competing demands for any additional resource.”

The document also says that it was unlikely that “lack of deterrence” was the catalyst for the rise in serious violence. “Forces with the biggest falls in police numbers are not seeing the biggest rises in serious violence.” Writing before the launch of her strategy to counter violence, Rudd said in a Sunday Telegraph article: 

“While I understand that police are facing emerging threats and new pressures – leading us to increase total investment in policing – the evidence does not bear out claims that resources are to blame for rising violence. In the early [90s], when serious violent crimes were at their highest, police numbers were rising. In 2008, when knife crime was far greater than the lows we saw in 2013-14, police numbers were close to the highest we’d seen in decades.”

Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said: “The government’s own analysis seems to suggest that cuts to police officer numbers have had an effect in encouraging violent offences. If true this blows apart the Tories’ repeated claims that their cuts have had no effect.” Labour has long believed that Conservative cuts to police budgets and the consequent fall in officer numbers is a vulnerability for the government.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, will announce he is to preside over a roundtable of police officers, violent crime victims and experts as he launches his party’s local election campaign and will say: “Over the last eight years the Conservative government has decimated local services, the core services that are an essential part of holding our communities together. “You simply cannot maintain community cohesion when you slash funding to the police service and cut the number of officers on our streets by 21,000.”

Launching the raft of plans aimed at reversing rising violent crime, Rudd will say: 

“This strategy represents a real step-change in the way we think about and respond to these personal tragedies, these gruesome violent crimes which dominate the front pages of our newspapers with seemingly depressing regularity. A crucial part of our approach will be focusing on and investing more in prevention and early intervention. We need to engage with our young people early and to provide the incentives and credible alternatives that will prevent them from being drawn into crime in the first place.”

Rudd will not follow the example of initiatives in Scotland, which treated rising violence as a “public health” issue, but borrow some of what was learnt from it. The research underpinning the strategy found that half the rise in robbery, knife and gun crime can be explained by improvements in police recording. The strategy identifies rising crack cocaine use as a “key driver” behind rising violence, and also for fuelling urban crime gangs moving into rural areas to sell drugs, known as “county lines”.

Between 2014-15 and 2016-17, killings where either the victim or suspect were involved in using or dealing illegal drugs increased from 50% to 57%, according to Home Office figures. In addition, there has been a 14% rise people seeking treatment for crack cocaine between 2015/16 and 2016/17.

More pressure will be put on social media companies to take down content glamorising or celebrating violence or perpetuating gang feuds, but there are no plans for legislation. The new serious violence strategy will not involve ministers reversing their position on stop and search, contrary to some reports, officials said.

The spate of shooting and stabbing deaths in London last week, abated over the weekend, with no more reported. Police chiefs ordered 300 extra officers on to the streets, but that is at best a short-term measure. The Met commissioner, Cressida Dick, has warned her force will struggle with the additional cuts it has to make, as police numbers across the capital are predicted to fall to 28,000 if funding is further squeezed. She spoke in October of the need to find hundreds of millions of pounds worth of savings on top of the £600m of cuts the Met had already made: “I find it incredible that anybody would think that over the next four or five years we should lose that much extra out of our budget.”

In his last speech as incumbent in February 2017, Dick’s predecessor Sir Bernard (now Lord) Hogan-Howe said financial pressures put the police under pressure and “there are some warning lights flashing”. Neil Basu, the head of counter-terrorism at Scotland Yard, warned in a Guardian interview in November that national security was being endangered by cuts to local policing, which amount to a potential disaster in the fight to stop terrorism.

Charities Subsidising TR - Shock!

I see there's been another report on how the third sector have been royally-shafted by TR. This on the Civil Society website:-

Charities subsidising £900m government rehabilitation programme

Charities providing services for the government’s £900m Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) scheme are using money from their own reserves to deliver contracts, according to umbrella body Clinks. Clinks has been reviewing the programme’s delivery since it launched in 2014. Speaking to Charity Finance magazine this week, chief executive Anne Fox said its latest survey results show an increasingly negative response from charities. 

Fox said half of respondents reported a negative impact on their organisation of the TR programme, up from 40 per cent in a similar survey the year before. She said charities are particularly losing out in procurement of services for high-risk-of-harm offenders through the National Probation Service (NPS). “So few of our members are actually getting money from the NPS, and that is a problem because there is a definite offer in the voluntary sector for high-risk-of-harm offenders.”

Charities subsiding contracts
For lower-risk offenders, services are procured through 21 regional community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) using a mechanism called a rate card. Fox said the rate card causes “confusion and problems” and that CRCs can charge an additional cost to charities for offering the service.

Fox said a third of organisations getting money from CRCs are using money from their own reserves, and a third are using other sources to subsidise services. In addition, Fox said there has been a shift away from local authority funding, with only a quarter of respondents to Clinks’ survey being funded through councils, compared to two-fifths in the previous survey. Fox said it is unclear whether this shortfall has been filled by an increase in public donations or by charities setting up their own social enterprises. She said:

 “We have seen some organisations setting up social enterprises with cafés or different things like that in their area. Often it is to provide training and employment opportunities for their clients that are not being funded in other ways. There is a view that these services should be funded by the public purse, but in reality the majority of funding is not coming from there.”

‘Model needs to be revised’
Fox added: “The general thing is about size. The bigger you are, the more scalable you are, and the more likely you are to get any work in the first place. We’ve seen a driving out of small and specialist providers. The model needs to be revised and one of the first things to go would be the rate card. The Transforming Rehabilitation system is reliant on organisations taking unpaid work.”

Meanwhile, Beth Murray, director of communications and engagement at Catch22, which delivers some services for the TR programme, said her organisation was frustrated with the scheme’s initial tendering process after failing to be selected as a prime provider.

She said: “There was an opportunity for a seismic shift in how the voluntary sector engages with justice, but it simply didn’t shape out like that. Contracts have been designed in such a way that bureaucracy has taken over a little and hitting the target does not necessarily mean you are achieving the best social outcome for the people that are leaving prisons.”

--oo00oo--

I'm not sure we covered news of a similar report from last year, but if we did it's worth reminding ourselves:-

Report: Charities exploited in chaotic £900m government programme

The £900m Transforming Rehabilitation programme to reform probation has been chaotic and underfunded, and has allowed large private providers to exploit small charities, according to a report published this week.

Beyond Bars: Maximising the voluntary sector's contribution in criminal justice, a report by think tank New Philanthropy Capital into charities’ role in rehabilitation and prison reform, found that the government’s flagship programme had been chaotic and underfunded.

Transforming Rehabilitation was introduced in 2014 and 2015, in order to be ready for the General Election, and involved simultaneously cutting funding, requiring an increase in provision, and transferring staff and services to new commercial providers.

Charities were encouraged to bid for prime contracts but were largely prevented from doing so because contracts were only open to organisations with a huge amount of funding on the balance sheet. Chris Grayling, then the Justice Secretary, had said he wanted Transforming Rehabilitation to offer an increased role to charities, but the report found it had been harmful to the sector.

Charities asked to work for free
The report found that charities had been used as “bid candy” – when an organisation is involved in a bid to make it look attractive but not offered any work. And it found that charities’ time had been wasted in applying for contracts that they did not win. It found that most charities now involved in the project were not fully recovering their costs. Other charities had had offenders referred to them but were not being paid at all. Yet others were only signing contracts now, two years after the programme launched.

Meanwhile, philanthropic funders were pulling out of the sector because they did not want to subsidise private profit or the public purse. “Chaotic doesn’t cover it,” one charity told the report authors.

Damaging campaigning
The report also found that Transforming Rehabilitation was damaging charities’ ability to campaign, and appeared to have silenced many charities. It found that payment-by-results programmes designed to encourage innovation had had the opposite effect, and driven charities into a risk-averse culture.

“Grass roots organisations feel they are ‘being exploited’ by some TR providers,” the report says. “With services provided through TR thin on the ground and demand increasing, providers refer to local charities outside of the supply chain, who are not only not being paid for their services, but also risk losing other funding sources by engaging. Many charity providers have pulled out over lack of clarity, which has cost them significant resource. It has been two years and some are only just signing contracts now. TR’s payment by results approach risks disincentivising organisations from working with the hardest to rehabilitate.”

IT system still not in place two years later
Separately a Parliamentary inquiry into Transforming Rehabilitation has been told that an IT system necessary to make the service work has still not been delivered, two years late, and that prime providers had received 30 per cent less referrals than expected – making it impossible to hit PbR targets. The committee also heard that rather than encouraging more volunteering and mentoring, as it was intended to do, the programme had actually made it more difficult for charities using these interventions. Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Inspector of Probation, told the committee that the process was “half-baked” and unlikely to succeed.

A Good News Story

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

First ever drug rehabilitation village opens its doors

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

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

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

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

--oo00oo--

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

Description

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

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

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

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

--oo00oo--

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

Food for Thought

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

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

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

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

Future of Independent Hostels

For as long as I can remember, there's been a 'mixed market' in the provision of hostel accommodation used by the probation service with some of the best being owned and operated by various voluntary or charitable organisations. Over the years the role of hostels, or Approved Premises as they are now called, has changed from a mixture of bail provision and welfare orientation to that of exclusively accommodating high risk offenders released on licence.

Since the TR split and the creation of the NPS, the inevitable civil service 'bureaucratisation' and command and control ethos has been putting in an appearance everywhere, not least with the new arrangements for security firms to staff APs overnight. However, I'm heartened to see from their recently-published annual report that the remaining independent hostels are remaining just that, independent:-     

       

NAPA: National Approved Premises Association 

Annual Report April 2017 to March 2018 

The past year has been a challenging, exciting and rewarding one for the National Approved Premises Association (NAPA) and Independent Approved Premises (IAPs). With the creation of the National Probation Service (NPS) from 1 June 2014, and the resulting centralised management of the Approved Premises (AP) estate, the role of NAPA in representing the whole of the AP sector had been put into question. Subsequently, and as a result of that change, the National Probation Service confirmed its intention to withdraw NAPA's annual grant as they would be taking over the functions for the NPS managed APs that NAPA had historically had a role in providing. These included 

• development of policy; 
• provision of an annual AP conference; 
• delivery of sector specific training;
• promotion of good practice; 
• fostering an understanding of the importance of the AP estate in its roles of managing and rehabilitating offenders who posed a high risk of harm to others. 

Consequently, NAPA made a decision to reform the organisation to focus specifically on supporting and promoting IAPs. This reformed NAPA position was welcomed by IAPs. The NAPA Executive was reconfigured so as to increase representation from IAPs, while, at the same time, ending that of 'Probation'. NAPA subsequently advertised and appointed a part time Director with a background in the IAP sector. 

With grant funding withdrawn, and IAPs struggling with limited budgets and not therefore in a position to offer financial support to NAPA, the Executive wrote to the Ministry of Justice requesting funding for 2017-2018. As a result, a decision was made to grant NAPA a further one year's (reduced) grant of £50K to enable NAPA to 

• facilitate the new contract negotiations between Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and IAPs; 
• support communications between HMPPS and IAPs; 
• provide training and development to IAPs and their staff. 

In view of the new role of NAPA, an annual workplan was drafted and agreed with IAPs. The workplan was designed to meet the needs of IAPs and obligations to HMPPS. It is with a certain amount of pride that we can say NAPA, with the support of the Executive Board, Director and all of our IAP colleagues, has been able to successfully adapt to the new environment and meet the challenges and expectations set. 

The following areas of work have been delivered over the last year by NAPA: 

1. Nine training events have been delivered to IAP staff during the year: topics included: 

• 'Dealing with Drugs and Alcohol’ 
• ’Suicide and Self Harm’ 
• 'Effective Engagement’, and 
• ‘Risk Assessment and Management’. We are currently developing a package ‘Working with Sex Offenders’ to be delivered during 2018-2019. 

2. Three IAP meetings have been organised and delivered during the year, bringing the sector together and sharing developments and good practice. 

3. In July 2017, NAPA convened an IAP gathering at Gladstone Library in North Wales which was very well attended and positively received. We were able to get a range of interesting speakers, including Deanna Francis, the AP central coordinator for HMPPS, Becky Hart and Mandy Horne from the contracts section of HMPPS, whose remits were to negotiate the new IAP contracts, and Joe Simpson from Her Majesty's Inspection of Probation, who headed up the 2017 thematic inspection entitled Probation Hostels' (Approved Premises) Contribution to Public Protection, Rehabilitation and Resettlement. NAPA had been interviewed by Joe Simpson earlier in the year as part of the AP inspection, and was provided with the opportunity to comment on current issues and concerns regarding the AP estate whilst highlighting the value of IAPs. This, along with positive visits having been conducted by the inspection team to two IAPs (St Johns and Adelaide House), resulted in the IAP sector being presented very favourably in the final Inspection Report, and described by her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, Dame Glenys Stacy, at the Clinks AGM as "a hidden gem". Following suggestions made at the Wales event, NAPA wrote to Lynda Marginson, then Deputy Director of Probation with responsibility for leading on AP, asking if NAPA could become a member of the National AP reference group, contributing to AP policy and practice and feeding back issues to IAPs. The request was accepted, and, during 2017-2018, NAPA attended four meetings. 

4. NAPA has facilitated contract negotiations between HMPPS and IAPs, which involved the holding of four meetings. It is with great delight to report that the negotiations have now concluded and IAPs are very happy with their individual settlements. We think that piece of work alone highlights the importance of NAPA as an umbrella organisation for the IAP sector, and the strength that comes from IAPs working together as a group. 

5. The NAPA website has been reviewed, and constantly updated, by Mike Short (a former NAPA Director) on a voluntary basis. Mike has also overseen our twitter account. 

6. NAPA has continued to sustain and develop its presence in the AP sector by corresponding and liaising with key people, attending relevant events and holding membership of relevant organisations in the wider sector, for example CLINKS. 

In conclusion, NAPA started the year with a real threat to its continued existence. That demanded a rethink of our purpose and whether we still had a meaningful role to play in the AP sector under the new arrangements. This led us to focus our attention and efforts towards the IAP group, which has wholeheartedly supported our new intentions and recognised our value to a section of the AP estate which is in the minority and has historically struggled to get its voice and value heard. 

It is with great pleasure we can report that this narrowing of our focus to represent IAPs only has enabled us to make a positive contribution to the eleven IAPs having secured signed three-year contracts with HMPPS for the provision of AP services to take effect from 1 April 2018, and under improved financial terms compared with the grant awarded in 2017-2018. We have also provided well attended AP specific training events throughout the country and highlighted the innovative work and good practice undertaken by IAPs, thus giving IAPs a higher profile within the Ministry of Justice and facilitating positive communications between IAPs and the wider HMPPS.  

Jill Dilks NAPA Chair

Peter Faill NAPA Director 

27 March 2018