Secret State

What living under the Tories in 2015 actually means:-  

Grayling Caught Out

It's utterly typical isn't it? Having explained the blog was having a snooze, Grayling shows his true colours and gets caught out trying to fix a more favourably-inclined replacement for Nick Hardwick, the prison inspector he sacked. Too good not to highlight. This from Ian Dunt on the Politics.co.uk website on Tuesday:-

Stitch up: Former Tory minister put on board to select new prison inspector

The last prison inspector felt he was pressured out of the job because he was too critical of government. Now it seems plans are afoot to prevent his replacement being of a similar disposition. Details have been released of the selection panel for the new inspector and one name stands out: Lord Oliver Henley, former Tory minister at the Home Office and Defra under the coalition, as well as serving in numerous government roles under Margaret Thatcher and John Major. The idea that Lord Oliver would make an impartial assessor of candidates is not credible.

He is one of two 'independent' panel members, alongside Amanda Sater, a member of the youth justice board. The rest of the panel is filled out by Antonia Romeo, former director of criminal justice at the Ministry of Justice, who oversaw justice secretary Chris Grayling's chaotic privatisation of the probation service, and Dame Anne Pringle, a public appointment assessor nominated by the commissioner for public appointments. With one former Tory minister teamed up with a Grayling loyalist, the odds are stacked against anyone with critical faculties securing the position.

This is not a coincidence. Former inspector Nick Hardwick's reports into the decline of the prison estate were one of the only ways to get information about what was going on in the nation's prisons, given the draconian restrictions on journalists or campaigners speaking to inmates. Hardwick was incensed by the 69% rise of suicides in prison – a rise which coincided with the twin disaster of slashed prison budgets and ever-more inmates being crammed into the system.

His last annual report, released in October, described a "significant decline in safety", a steep rise in assaults and the "loss of more experienced staff" due to cuts. The report also went about as far as Hardwick could safely go in blaming Grayling directly. He wrote:

"Increases in self-inflicted deaths, self-harm and violence cannot be attributed to a single cause. They reflect some deep-seated trends and affect prisons in both the public and private sectors. Nevertheless, in my view, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the conjunction of resource, population and policy pressures, particularly in the second half of 2013-14 and particularly in adult male prisons, was a very significant factor for the rapid deterioration in safety and other outcomes we found as the year progressed." [italics added]

In response, Grayling announced publicly that he would not renew Hardwick's contract, which runs out in July, and instead demanded that he re-apply for the job. This was not unexpected. Prison inspectors often have a difficult relationship with the government, although not all ministers are so disreputable in how they deal with them. Dame Anne Owers still had her contract extended and served two five-year terms, despite being very critical of the government. Lord Ramsbotham did not – a fact which probably owed something to his strained relationship with a succession of home secretaries (this is in the days before the creation of the Ministry of Justice). Hardwick opted not to reapply for the job, saying:

"Told MoJ ministers & officials I won't be reapplying for my post. Can't be independent of people you are asking for a job." Grayling insisted the re-advertising process was par for the course, but no-one doubts he wanted Hardwick gone. This selection panel is likely to deliver someone more to his liking.

But now we have this, as reported in the Guardian:-

Appointment of new prisons inspector halted amid criticism of selection panel

The appointment of a new chief inspector of prisons by the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, has been halted until after the general election after it emerged that two “independent” members of the four-strong selection panel are Tory party activists. The Ministry of Justice has announced that Nick Hardwick, the current chief inspector whose term was not renewed by Grayling, has now been asked to stay on until November while a fresh hunt for a successor takes place.

Sir Alan Beith, the chairman of the Commons justice select committee, criticised Grayling’s failure to disclose that both independent members of the appointment panel were active Tory party members. They are Lord Henley, a former Conservative Home Office minister, and Amanda Sater, a member of the youth justice board who was named last year as women’s adviser to Grant Shapps, the Tory party chairman.

Beith said the justice secretary had given the MPs “no convincing reason” why he had not put forward for pre-appointment scrutiny the single “excellent” candidate that the panel had recommended. The appointment panel was chaired by Dame Anne Pringle, the commissioner for public appointments, and the fourth member was a senior justice ministry official.

Even though half of the appointment panel were active Conservatives, Grayling appears to have rejected the single preferred candidate they recommended, despite the candidate being rated by them as “excellent”. It is understood that Grayling believed the panel should have given him a choice of at least two or three names, despite a civil service ruling that there is no need for an appointment panel to put forward more than one name.

Instead, the justice secretary has now ordered the selection process to be re-run, putting the decision beyond the general election. Grayling has told the members of the justice select committee, who were poised to hold a confirmation hearing before the election, that “he will not be proposing a preferred candidate to them as there was not a wide enough pool of candidates from which to select”.

The justice select committee had been due to hold a pre-appointment hearing with the preferred candidate later this month, with Hardwick’s fixed term originally due to end in July 2015. The decision means that the new independent chief inspector of prisons will be appointed by the justice secretary in the new government.

A report on the affair rushed out by the Commons justice committee concludes: “The fact that two members of the panel were members of the same party as the appointing minister is a cause for particular concern for a post in which it is vital the incumbent commands public confidence in his or her ability to resist political pressure.”

The shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said: “Not content with effectively sacking the chief inspector of prisons for daring to criticise his government’s prisons policy, Chris Grayling has stuffed the appointment panel for the new inspector full of known Tories. It just shows to what lengths this government will go to avoid having their failing policies properly scrutinised. This fails the smell test, and it calls into question how any chief inspector of prisons appointed by this process could ever claim to be independent.”

Hardwick has proved a rigorous critic of Grayling’s prison policies warning of a “political and policy failure” last year and voicing concern that staff shortages were causing “huge tensions” across the prison estate in England and Wales.

The job description for the new appointment said that a “strong understanding of current and recent” government reforms in relation to prisons and probation was an important part of the recruitment process. Paul McDowell, the chief inspector of probation appointed by Grayling, stood down earlier this year after the Guardian disclosed that his wife was running the private justice company that had been awarded the largest number of probation contracts.

Finally this from Ian Dunt last night:-

Failure of scrutiny: How Grayling got his way with new prison inspector

Chris Grayling's behind-the-scenes attempts to appoint a more pliable prisons inspector could trigger a change in the code of practise for ministerial appointments, after a damning report called for urgent action to prevent it happening again.

The Commons justice committee raised the alarm when it discovered that both supposedly independent members of the appointment panel for the new chief inspector - Lord Oliver Henley and Amanda Sater - were actually active members of the Tory party. This information was kept from the justice committee. A third member, Antonia Romeo, was former director of criminal justice at the MoJ and the figure responsible for Grayling's probation privatisation programme. So out of four panel members, three had a reason to pick someone favourable to the justice secretary.

As if that weren't enough, Grayling then vetoed their suggestion and refused to put forward a candidate who was considered "excellent" by the panel.

The weirdness doesn't stop there, however. I'm told the MoJ's announcement into the extension of the current prison inspector's term was announced today specifically to sabotage the Commons committee report, which was originally timetabled for tomorrow. Instead of waiting for it to come out, Grayling pre-empted it in a bid to minimise the damage. After that, the committee was forced to make its report public immediately.

Autopilot

The blog is going to be on autopilot for a few days due to a combination of things including a dearth of something new to say, my mood reflecting that of many probation staff, some family matters to attend to, and finally the guest blog cupboard being completely bare. 

Please, dear readers, carry on doing what you've been doing for ages and ages; posting news, thoughts, observations and should anyone have the urge to write a guest blog, now would be as good a time as any. 

Look after each other and normal service should resume before long.

Cheers,

Jim   

Information

I thought readers might be interested in some snippets from the latest (12th March) MoJ/Noms Senior Leaders Bulletin:- 

HMCTS provision of Court Orders to NPS

There are currently a variety of practices in place nationally for HMCTS to provide Court orders or Notifications of sentences at Magistrates court to probation, depending upon locally agreed practice.

A National process has now been agreed to enable prompt, electronic notification of the details of sentence to NPS. An electronic copy of the Court order or Notification of the order of the Court will be automatically sent direct from Libra to functional mailboxes set up within NPS. This electronic process will replace all existing local procedures.

• Libra will generate a court order/ notification of order of the court to be sent to 7 NPS Divisional mail boxes.
• These will then automatically forward to the appropriate NPS court functional mail box by using the OU code (code of the sentencing court).
• NPS Court SPOs will have a process in place to monitor the local and Divisional mailboxes on a daily basis
• On receipt of the court order/notification, NPS administration staff will check NDelius to confirm where the case was allocated to. NPS administration staff will then send the court order/notification on to the NPS or CRC office holding the case in line with PI 05/2014 Case allocations.

Functuality is due to be available from 23rd March 2015.

Prisons and Probation Ombudsman publishes thematic report on prison suicides in 2013/14

Learning from PPO Investigations: self-inflicted deaths of prisoners – 2013/14

'There is no simple answer to why the number of prisoners committing suicide rose so sharply last year, but the rise was unacceptable', said Nigel Newcomen, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) when he published a thematic study on 10th March on the lessons to be learned from investigations into self-inflicted deaths of prisoners in 2013/14.

The lessons that need to be learned are:

• staff working in prison receptions should actively identify known risk factors for suicide and self-harm and not simply act on a prisoner’s presentation;
• relationship breakdown and violent offences against family members are known risk factors for suicide and being subject to a restraining order can be a sign of increased vulnerability;
• all new arrivals should promptly receive an induction to provide information to help them meet their basic needs in prison;
• mental health referrals need to be made and acted on promptly and there should be continuity of care from the community;
• prisoners are most at risk in the first month of custody; 

• the cumulative impact on potential suicide of restrictions, punishments, IEP levels and access to work needs to be considered; 

• prisoners on open ACCT documents should only be segregated in exceptional circumstances; • suicide prevention procedures should focus on the prisoner as an individual and the processes must be correctly implemented;

• increased risk of suicide and self-harm should be considered when a prisoner is a suspected victim of bullying; and
• effective and confident emergency response saves lives. 

This document is available on the PPO website at www.ppo.gov.uk. Please cascade to all relevant staff.

Offenders Sentenced to Less than 12 Months Custody

Following the implementation of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, all offenders sentenced to less than 12 months custody will, for the first time, be subject to a period of post-release licence from the point of release. Furthermore, this post-release licence will be supplemented by a further consecutive period of Post-Sentence Supervision that will take the overall period of supervision in the community up to 12 months. As such, all offenders sentenced to less than 12 months custody who are assessed as High RoSH and/or having an RSR score greater than 6.89% must have a full OASys assessment and Initial Sentence Plan within 4 weeks of the date of sentence.

PQF Learner in NPS or CRC (Cohort 3)

Applicants to become a PQF learner in the NPS or CRC as part of Cohort 3 (starting in May 2015) will hear their results this week. The overall standard of applications was high.

The new qualification pathway for probation needs to be ready to be launched in April 2016.

To develop the pathway a board and project group have been established: the Probation Qualification Review Project is now underway and the Board meets regularly. Both have a combination of NOMS, NPS and CRC representation and anyone who would like to join the virtual Reference Group to review drafts and ideas is welcome to contact...

New E-learning - The Basics of Custodial Screening & Resettlement Plans

From the 8th December 2014, the OASys application was changed to incorporate the new Basic Custody Screening (BCS) form that is part of the new Through the Gate (TTG) Delivery Model.

From May 2015, Community Rehabilitation Company staff will begin to complete the BCS part 2 on prisoners for all receptions into custody who will have received a BCS part 1, which will have been completed by prison staff.

It is likely that CRC staff working in prisons completing BCST Part 2 will have had no previous experience of OASys and access will be limited by role based access (RBACS) to the BCST function on OASys.

As it is a contractual requirement of CRCs to complete BCST Part 2, learning has been developed for CRC staff who will not be OASys Assessor or OASys Case Administrator trained, but who will be required to complete the Basic Custody Screening (BCS) Tool Part 2 or administer the BCS Part 2 process.

The course will be available to learners on the Justice Partnership Academy and Justice Academy from April 7th 2015.

Pre-course reading of all of the BCS Guidance documents is required prior to completing the e-learning.

By the end of this course learners will be able to:

• Gather username and password required to log into the OASys application from both Quantum and OMNI infrastructure 
• Describe the support process for practice queries, functionality queries and when the application does not work as expected 
• Navigate around the OASys system correctly 
• Navigate to the ‘Pending BCS (Part 2) View’ and correctly use the view to administer the BCS process. 
• State the difference between an OASys assessment and a BCS. 
• State the timings for BCS Part 1 and BCS Part 2 
• Complete BCS Part 2 resettlement plan 
• Complete BCS Part 2 Pre-release activity 
• Understand how to enter in resettlement activity at any point during the custodial sentence 
• Print BCS 
• Describe the context of the BCS as a part of the Through the Gate delivery model
• Describe the offender management process 
• Administer the functions that will enable the BCS process.

Completion of this learning will provide good assurance that CRC staff have the requisite skills and knowledge to be granted access to the OASys platform.

NPS Bail Information Officer Training

Following the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation, local training on bail information was no longer available. As a result, there was a need for us to provide national training in this area for NPS Court staff.

From March 27th a newly developed e-learning course – Bail Information Officer Training will be available on the NPS Faculty page on the Justice Academy:

Before undertaking the course, there is a pre course requirement for staff to have undertaken one shadow visit to Court with a Bail Information Officer (BIO) or to have previous experience of working as a BIO.

This new course is mandatory for all new NPS court staff and it will provide learners with the core knowledge and skills to enable identification of appropriate bail cases, completion of bail enquiries and creation of bail reports to a sufficient standard.

By the end of this course learners will be able to:

• Reference legislation relating to bail
• Explain key tasks of your role and how to prioritize
• List potential grounds for refusal of bail
• Understand the issues involved in gathering and verifying bail information
• Complete a bail report to a satisfactory standard
• Make a well-considered proposal to court including bail conditions where required. 

There is a pass/fail test at end of learning package but staff are able to repeat the learning until a pass is achieved.

The new learning is intended to help to reduce remands in custody for defendants suitable for bail, increase referrals to bail accommodation services and improve the quality of information provided to the Court. 

Guest Blog 33

Important stuff you should know as a probation officer

I have been reading recent posts with interest especially about the lack of time to produce detailed reports, lack of information etc. I feel that I have to point out the following to all those involved in either the CRC’s or the NPS: you are obligated under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 to ensure that any personal data you place into a client’s file is completely accurate and any information you put into a report on a client is also required to be accurate and verified for accuracy..

This also means that you have a legal obligation to ensure that any piece of personal information you record in a client’s file is not “misleading as to fact”. If you do not do this, you are not only breaching your client’s data protection rights but you are also breaking the law. At the very least this could mean formal complaints against you or an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office or even a law suit.

It has always surprised and appalled me in equal measure that probation officers seem to be completely oblivious in relation to their legal obligations under the Data Protection Act. You deal with personal data every day in your jobs and should therefore take steps to educate yourselves about your legal obligations in this regard yet you do not. 

Data protection isn’t some vague fuzzy concept only paid attention to by someone at head office; it is part of your job and the failures to uphold your legal obligations towards your clients in respect of data protection issues means you are breaking the law. Given that you are supposed to help clients to stay on the straight and narrow, breaking the law doesn't really set a very good example for the client.

Now this may not bother you (it apparently doesn’t bother my OM who sees no reason why she has to uphold the law in anything let alone the issue of accuracy of what she records in my file) but there are legal consequences for failing to adhere to your legal obligations in this respect. This may not bother you but it sure as hell will bother your employer when it is forced to deal with the fallout and investigations and potential fines that can be imposed let alone compensation that could be awarded.

I suppose there are some probation officers who think that most of their clients are illiterate idiots who won’t know about the Data Protection Act and their rights under that Act so breaching the client’s data protection rights won’t come back to bit them in the butt but just bear in mind that all it would take to derail an entire CRC or NPS office is for every client (or even just a few) to request a copy of their file and then to raise a formal complaint about the inaccuracies in respect of personal data in their files (because in my experience there are likely to be numerous factual inaccuracies and information in the file which is misleading as to fact) for the entire system to come crashing down. Especially because the DPA requires a data controller (e.g. CRC or NPS) to have procedures in place for ensuring accurate recording of personal data and you have legal obligations to respond to complaints and amend inaccurate personal data within specified time frames.

You are, of course, entitled to express your professional opinion about a client in a client file but each and every time you do so you need to ensure that it is recognisable as a professional opinion and is not presented as a fact”. In other words, if you are not presenting a fact e.g. John is six feet tall (you had him measured), you should preface what you are saying with the phrase “in my professional opinion . . .” to cover your butt. 

Given that apparently a lot of butt covering goes on in probation and this is likely to increase as TR progresses, I am always surprised that your average probation officer isn’t aware of this and there is a consistent failure to properly record what is a professional opinion and what is a fact. Moreover you are legally obligated to take reasonable steps to verify the accuracy of any personal data given to you about the data subject by a third party before you put it into the data subject’s file. 

This does not mean doing nothing as seems to be current and historical practice. At the very least it requires you to ask of the third party what steps they have undertaken to verify the accuracy of the data they have given to you and if they cannot provide this information then when you record the information in the client file you need to make it clear that you have not been able to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the third party. 

You cannot simply assume that if it comes from a “trusted source” e.g. police, courts etc that it is accurate and the law requires that you make your own investigations in respect of the accuracy of the data provided to you. Fail to do so and if the data turns out to be inaccurate (and let’s face it we’ve all seen instances where through human error stuff has turned out to be plain wrong) you have broken the law because you didn’t take any steps to verify it. If said inaccurate data led you to make recommendations about a client that severely impacted on sentence (say if they are IPP) or their licence conditions etc then you may well be liable for compensation and redress to the client.

You are also required under the DPA to be able to show where you got any and all information you have in a client’s file. So if you got sent a fax from social services for example which is a letter say not from social services to probation but from someone else and social services were given a copy of it and have now given it to you, you need to keep the fax cover sheet to show who the information is from and when it was received so there is a paper trail relating to the letter. You cannot ditch the fax cover sheet as current practice in at least my CRC does, because then you are unable to provide the data subject with the information as to where you obtained the letter from. The law is clear that you have to be able to provide a paper trail detailing where you received every single piece of information in a client’s file from.

If you fail to accurately record each and every piece of personal information in a client’s file or write a report about a client, put in information which is misleading as to fact or do not clearly distinguish a professional opinion from a fact or present your professional opinion as fact you are breaking the law and are thus liable under the law for those breaches.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence in English/Welsh law so claiming you didn’t know what your legal obligations were won’t wash in respect of an investigation by the ICO into breaches of data protection rights or even a court case. Assuming that data protection is up to Head Office to worry about and thus not your concern is inaccurate and could land you in a whole heap of trouble.

For those who may be interested in finding out more on this subject, the Information Commissioner’s Office publishes a lot of very helpful help sheets on their website.

Anon

Bleak Futures Week 11

What really concerns me most is the management policy of distancing itself from practice because if they do not know, they think they have no responsibility: any blame can sit with the practitioner. They should remember that their salaries are higher purely because of responsibility payments.

*****
The IT system should be the highest factor in the business risk register and coded red.

*****
I have this to say to everyone who thinks Manchester is capable of offering the same level of service now as pre-TR. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah *pauses for breath* hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

*****
This applies both to CRC and to NPS as things are changing daily and its reminiscent of the movie 'Downfall' when Der Fuhrer attempts to move divisions that don't exist anymore in the mistaken belief that salvation is at hand and no-one has the balls to tell him...sound familiar????

*****
There are people in our local prison doing CRC TTG and I've no idea who they are but they are not CRC Probation - they're not NPS probation either. Who are these people and why if prison staff are doing BCS and pre-release planning is there a panic that probation CRC staff need to be directed to transfer to custody if its being done by others? Very confusing about who's doing what.

*****
In HMP Durham it was until this month Foundation who ran TTG. This has now stopped and we are in an absolutely shocking position that people are being released with only £46 in their pocket and no support!!! It should not be like this and if there was only some way that we could tear apart, on ideological grounds, an award winning service in order to provide this support. Oh, hang on......

*****
This is one of the fallacies that the TR providers are about to discover. There actually was TTG support in place, just not through MoJ contracted services - mostly through agreements with Local Authorities and third sector. They were effective too, but are now down the swannie. The TR providers will now have to pay for their own service but without the flexibility that previous arrangements had. Dear oh dear....I just don't think they understood this at all. And I can't see how they can afford it. Past Foundation and Shelter services in the North - all will have to be replaced with TR provider money.

*****
A lot of what is going on is stalling and pretending. Just get to after the election then who gives a fuck.

*****
It's so depressing, and clients are suffering too, on a global (universal) scale! I'll soon try to transfer a lifer to another area - still within the NPS district. Never liked losing people I've positively worked with for years to another area, but his reasons for wanting to go are genuine and the right thing to do, for him. I anticipate a struggle and it shouldn't be this way! The other area has no council properties as it has all been outsourced to a private company, so that's the first hurdle, but then there will be probation, victim services, Mappa and police.

It's exhausting for me and emotionally draining for the client! I know what you're thinking, no change there, but post TR the system appears to have had an intellectual and morality bypass! A consequence of which has been a reduction of confidence, something I have never been short of, and that will, if it carries on lead to feelings of hopelessness!

*****
Good luck with your lifer transfer. My case is unable to return to his home area but no area will accept transfer of him near to his open prison (two areas nearby) citing "no community support/links" as the reason. Also I couldn't get him into an AP in south for his ROTLs earlier on for the same reason. Chances of accommodation are pretty low. I shall continue to try my best for him from one hundred and fifty miles away, but it is very difficult to travel due to time constraints (what do I leave undone in order to travel to him?) and expense. Rehabilitation....the reality.

*****
For the last ten years the provision of accommodation for probation clients has evaporated. Community Safety agencies, DV forums, Homelessness teams - all seem too eager to refuse to support applications. When did a CRB check become part of registering as homeless? Since when was gossip exchanged at a "professionals" meeting accepted as 'fact'? Not many weeks back I spent 5 hours at the local housing office with a client. At 4pm they told me they were closing for the day - "perhaps you could buy her a tent and a sleeping bag?"

For a recent releasee on Licence I've had to resort to utilising housing provision previously set aside for prospective tenants with diagnosed learning disability. Complaints etc have been lodged, but no-one seems interested. Even if he had £460 in his pocket on release, he still couldn't have found accommodation.

I think the wholesale transfer of local authority housing stock was criminal, yet another act of reckless political vandalism which robbed the local tax payers of their assets. Even if TR was a sensible plan (which it isn't) it is inherently doomed to fail because there is no working infrastructure in the UK. Why? Because it's been hastily dismantled & sold off over the last 30 or so years. Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown & Cameron are the Steptoe & Son of the political world. Scrap merchants, thieves & exploitative, self-interested gits.

*****
Second day in new CRC Team, just me replacing 3 FT staff who have jumped across to NPS. Was asked to see a young man who came in insisting he had an appointment and no record of him at all to be found on Delius. Admin had rung the Court, they said they didn't know anything about him. Took him in an interview room and he explained he had been in court two days earlier. He used to be with the YOT but the Court 'squashed' that and told him he's got to do 30 days something but he doesn't know what.

Put him in the waiting room, rang the YOT, exasperated officer says she's been on to the Court several times about him, he's high risk of harm and should be at the NPS office 6 miles away except it then turns out that he has given a fake address at Court (despite the YOT Officer warning that he might do this) and he shouldn't even be in our town. After he'd been hanging around now for 40 minutes, explained all this to him. He told me to fuck off and that Probation is fucking shit. Had to agree really.

*****
Happening all over the place!

*****
Yep. Case came into the office last week. Reception can't find him on Delius and he doesn't know who he is here to see. Eventually I go down and take him into interview room to ask some details (as office was crowded). From what I can gather he appears to be a CRC case arrived from Court. No record of him though. A shambles, not to mention dangerous.

Another one last week where unpaid work have no access to OASys before 1st appointment. NPS have a look and in his last assessment (2013) he was high risk of serious harm. Who knows what his risk is now as sentenced without an up to date OASys.

Finally, FDR completed at Court by PSO on known sex offender who police consider to be high risk. Index offence on the face of it, fairly minor and not a sex offence so historical offences had gone unnoticed. All this in one office in one week.

*****
Purple Futures looking fragile and wet behind the ears. They have been holding lots of workshops on new service design with staff who aren't experienced in the right places, and the unofficial feedback is that they are coming up with ideas that failed some years ago - group reporting, narrow officer specialisms. Unrealistic about challenges with IT systems also. We know from past experience that emphasis on group work and specialisms is very expensive and inefficient, and loose group work is ineffective too. Some people need reining in but are taken for innovative and enthusiastic.

My analysis of all this is that those TR providers who look at the Segmentation evidence on effective practice will shy away from groups for the sake of it. But unfortunately too many seem to think this is a route to effectiveness and efficiency.

*****
I'm so angered by what this government has done to what was once an award winning probation service. Nothing works anymore, NOTHING!! Case allocation - doesn't work. ORA - doesn't work. TTG - doesn't work. Delius - doesn't work. NPS helpdesk - doesn't work. Shared services -doesn't work (total piss take). It's total chaos out there while the managers go round telling everyone that it is working. There's a real disconnect between managers and their staff now, we don't speak to each other any more. No small talk or questions about how YOU are actually feeling with all these high risk cases. Just a get on with it attitude. I don't know who or what can save us now? I don't think many people care? It's all going horribly wrong.....

*****
It's all going wrong all right, when a PO with 20 years experience of managing high risk cases, continues to carry the same cases after being shafted to the CRC, with an allocated NPS member of staff overseeing the work, and tasked with 'risk management'. 20 years of loyal service rewarded by having all credibility stripped, renamed a 'responsible officer', and unable to make a decision about anything, only to find that the over-seeing NPS officers are agency PSO's been in the service 10 minutes with no investment what so ever. Good call for public protection!

*****
And yet again, it is spouted all is well when on the ground - it is far from it. Diluted supervision, and only ticking right boxes for profit is the key. Behind machines still rather than the real probation face to face work. It's as bollocks now as it has been for last few years. Correction - didn't think it could get worse but it has. Desistance - a manager wouldn't understand it if it bit them in the arse. And Napo, Unison - weakest unions I have ever been party to in all my years of working. Thank god I'm close to retirement.

*****
Can anyone explain to me how we are supposed to explain to courts what the pile of shite called a RAR is?

*****
Working Links run the DWP Work Programme in Wales and now run Wales CRC, plus 2 others. They frequently sanction offenders and make no allowances for their chaotic lives. They 'park' offenders. Fun times ahead!

*****
In Wales prisoners are now being released under the new ORA with no support agencies in place. TTG not up and running and still no date given for it

*****
Being elected to be assigned CRC has made me reflect on the quality assurance within our CRC and how effective we can be. Yes I'm gutted about the split, but my passion for the work that we all do and the commitment from staff is admirable. All the crap from on high can stay with the likes of CG and his pals and leave the face and future of our CRC to the ones who know best, us!!!!!!

Yes we are hearing on this blog about poor systems that are in place, managers rocking around corridors trying to creep their way into the arses of the providers and some staff walking away. However, there is a fight still ongoing around our integrity and values in the CRC world and in some ways we are winning. The providers we have in our area are listening, strange but true, and are willing to look at what we do as we are fighting for a service of quality not shite!!!

Training is still ongoing and gaining speed. Sorry NPS I know this is not true for you guys. QA is a priority, just as we knew it previously and for us staff we are standing up and shouting but being listened to. Sorry for going on, but my passion for my work and the good work shown by my colleagues is something I am very proud of and it is going to stay. I get sick of hearing us in the CRC world, your colleagues, being made to feel second fiddle, but one thing I will say is that we are not going away, we are going to fight this and keep our integrity because you know why - we have a pair of balls!!!!

*****
The Isle of Wight has two prisons – Parkhurst and Albany. There was a third – Camphill – but it closed. Grayling was on the Island last week. Guess which 'prison' he visited? Camphill! Had he visited Albany, he would have heard about the fire, that started in a cell but led to a full-scale emergency and 18 prisoners in hospital. There was panic at one point with trapped prisoners being told to saturate towels and hold them to their faces when the electronic cell doors initially failed to open. Maybe I missed this in the news at the time or was it suppressed? Not a minor incident as A wing was shutdown for weeks. But not something that Grayling thought worth a visit – preferring an empty prison instead.

*****
People leaving and no signs of any plans to replace them; people off sick; constant requests from management to courts to re-list cases; missed results due to staff absences; every previous route to efficiency blocked by a new layer of IT & bureaucracy. It isn't working.

*****
Well I am glad the CRCs can access a computer. North East computers and phones have been down all day in my office. No communication with the outside world. Of course if they had have been on I could have sent off my application for the Prison Governor NOMs graduate fast track, hasty rushed into senior leadership post. Because it's so much more gratifying not dealing with all the violence and bullying on the inside rather than scratching my arse all day in the office with little to do given we are encouraged to rely on ndelius. In future I shall take a book to pass the time.

*****
I have very recently had contact with someone who works for Ernst & Young. Our friendship has been developing positively. Who are they and what do they do? Well set your mind back a little. For those who are not aware, Ernst Young is one of the largest auditing firms for Gov departments. I'm slowly working to get some interesting information out soon.

*****
A piece of work from yesterday could not be completed due to no NPS admin. This morning I have to wait to be informed when NPS admin have done their thing before I am able to piss about with the IT bureaucracy myself. Then I need to inform NPS admin that I've done my thing so they can do yet another bit before CRC even get the case. Meanwhile in the good days I wouldn't have been pissing about like this. I would be somewhere else, doing something useful.

*****
Couldn't agree more. The lack of information provided by PSRs means CRC POs have to undertake their our own checks re domestic violence & child protection. Whilst waiting for the information to come back, no work is being done to protect said partner or child. When raised with managers, response is "if there is an SFO we're covered because there is no way of us knowing before". My response: "So it's OK that partner dies because we're covered? What the fuck?!?". Just how it is now.

Over in NPS: POs can check domestic call outs and child protection but the info won't be back to inform the court report. So what do we do with the info when it does come back? What if we are off sick or moved offices or no longer in the role? It's not good for important info to go through a third party.

Best process would be for NPS to make enquiries at earliest opportunity and for CRC to have a central e-mail for all info to go to to make sure it is received. This would mean NPS taking time to do 'work on behalf of CRC' and CRC not burying its head in the sand. Not sure I can see any of this happening. People will die but it's OK because the blame won't be able to be pinned on anyone so it's all good.

*****
The statement 'we're covered' will only wash once with SFO's, victim groups, politicians and the media - as the lessons learned from the first have clearly made no difference and the inquiries will just go on an on, with no regard for victims or perpetrators. Ten years or more ago, Probation managers insisted practitioners made checks on all those our clients live with, due to some very nasty and tragic deaths of children in the same household as our service users and there are parallels with social workers being pilloried for not getting over the front door to find out who lives there! It is an utter disgrace that current practice effectively ignores all that has gone before. I am ashamed to be part of it!

*****
Perhaps each office, CRC and NPS need to highlight concerns in writing and pass up the chain of command. Since it seems to be all about accountability, this might be a way of getting them to take action. If we've highlighted the issues formally, senior management won't be 'in the clear' when the inevitable happens. Might make them sort this out.

*****
Without wishing to understate the impact of TR on court reports, the dumbing-down of reports started years ago with a steady decline in full reports and the increase in orals and FDRs. The senior managers in probation trusts pushed these changes hard and were indifferent to the loss of quality. And yet before this dumbing-down there had been great emphasis on how a report could only be produced via a full OASys and in some cases – domestic violence in particular - two interviews were mandatory. This was the practice standard, it was evidence-based practice, consistent with the best probation values. And then all gets dropped like a hot potato as the expedited report becomes the norm. When any organisation can do such somersaults in service delivery, credibility as to core values and practices is destroyed, and you find it difficult not to conclude that it's so-called values are shallow and opportunistic. The workplace becomes a crude bureaucracy.

*****
Never thought they could be dumbed down any more but they are. One CRC PO who raised significant concerns regarding information coming to light after case allocated to CRC which involved sexual offence and family history of sexual offences told by CRC Manager - 'your job is not to assess risk but to assess need and not to go looking and digging for information regarding risk'. Our future - public at risk - we have to say NOT ON OUR WATCH.

*****
This mirrors the London CAT CRIT CIT experiment of about 15 years ago. It was found that no part of the system took ownership of anything but their bit. Seamless it was not. Now we have that situation on steroids. No part of the system cares at all about any other part. The Courts need to get the report done fast and so will roll them off. If it's expensive and mistakes need to be corrected, well that comes out of some other sods budget (and in a lot of cases out of some other Agencies budget) so screw 'em. This time though nobody is in a position to oversee the whole process. I suspect that it's falling apart faster than last time. But I don't know cos I am just a foot soldier. I don't think the generals know either cos somebody has put them in two separate bunkers, burnt their maps and torn out the telephone lines.

*****
New case that arrived for induction this week with no information - I couldn't even find out what her sentence was. I gently asked if she had her Court Order with her - NO! She told me her case was adjourned for 3 weeks and was given a report appointment on the day of sentencing and, due to transport delays, was 1/2 hour late for her interview. She was very upset at being given 20 minutes to relate her story and her frustration was stated to the Court in her report, again providing resentment based on a feeling of injustice. I gave an empathetic ear, but this demonstrates the complete failure to recognise the impact in fragmenting our service!

*****
New case allocated CRC - Looked for PSR not one, looked for pre-cons, none, looked for CPS none. Looked at RSR - ONLY document available - guess what - undefined was the answer against the majority of questions. Explanation - no NPS in court at time of sentence. How can a case be allocated to CRC without at the very least the full RSR being completed to accurately define the score? Surely if NPS are not in court, then an appt with NPS should be arranged post-sentence to complete the necessary paperwork? - PS No CAS either. PPS: This is not a criticism of NPS colleagues but of the system. However, what I don't think NPS staff understand is the impact on CRC staff is that this could have a significant impact on PbRs which ultimately is going to cost NOT JUST JOBS but potentially LIVES.

*****
Two cases in two days where NPS have contacted previous OMs (shafted to CRC) for information regarding current or previously known cases. In first instance NPS staff told the individual has been supervised for 18 months and failed to engaged in any intervention to address specific needs related to offending but still a CO being considered; the second the individual has never completed a CO - each has resulted in multiple breaches before revocation has been the ultimate outcome - you guessed - CO being proposed. I'm sorry, I'm all for wanting to help individuals, but where it is clear they do not want to engage with either their COs or intervention to address their specific needs - why set up the individual or CRC staff to fail?

*****
Honestly this happens with NPS allocations too...only the cases are high ROSH...I'm really NOT saying NPS cases 'trump' CRC cases before anyone responds that way, I just want to say we are all in the same rubbish boat. I also really feel for court staff 'cos who came into this job to work doing oral reports all day?

*****
Imagine this one....sentenced on oral report to an ATR, but err, the client had been suspended from his previous ATR for err, assaulting the alcohol keyworker - yup TR works!
PS not blaming the CDO, don't think I could have done any different in an hour....we are relying on the clients to tell us this vital information now and why would they?

*****
So sad to read today's blog. The bulk of my probation career was spent in the courts, providing sentencers, clients and colleagues alike with as good a service as possible. Daily liaison was inevitable with sentencers (judges or magistrates), clerks, defence & CPS lawyers, social services, police, youth offending, other probation areas - even with the media circus when higher profile cases were being dealt with. It was a challenging but satisfying career - and by proactively managing the work in the courts meant that, in every sense, we were on top of our game, and we were very rarely caught short. Sounds like its become a Kafka-esque nightmare.

*****
If you want to experience a Kafkaesque situation, try applying to leave the service and accessing your pension through Shared Services. The different departments don't appear to communicate with each other and the whole process is a stressful nightmare. The above post describes the process with alarming precision.

*****
"They have concerns about sentencing not being targeted to suit their business model". Is it now the case that private enterprise with no experience of, or no concern in other than profit, will significantly influence law and justice to shape itself around business models?

*****
It really is all going wrong from the courts - the blame must lie with management. Staff have no discretion just instruction these days and yes the term battery hens is appropriate.

*****
A woman down the pub told me that in Wales PO's are being withdrawn from Courts - only PSO's will remain - let's just see how that all works then shall we. Pay - in real terms our salaries have decreased - salaries have not kept pace with inflation. I believe salary scales will blur and merge - and in one direction of course - downwards.

*****
We've been split into teams, cases transferred in a week. Next week we start the new working arrangements. Only problem is we have not been told how we will be working. I thought the last year was bad, just when you think it can't get any worse, it does. Apparently every service user that has children will be checked for Social Services involvement. Social Services already in meltdown and must be against human rights. Whilst safeguarding children is paramount, because someone offends does not automatically mean he/she is a bad parent.

*****
For the last 2 years we've been under management direction to take names & dob of ALL children (birth, step, etc) of ALL cases (& their current partners) and check with social services - "triage" (ain't that a sweet name for it?) to see if they're known, current or otherwise. Any case refusing to provide those details or give consent is referred to "triage" for a check on the adults name & address in any event. Well, you never know, do you? They've been caught drink-driving, they've already proved they can wilfully break the law, they're likely to be liars as well, they probably starve their children to pay for their booze, they probably beat them in a drunken rage, no self-control you see, no discipline, just think of those poor babies, etc, etc, etc... "AND how would YOU feel if YOU failed to make those checks? What would the SFO say about YOU? Now get on that 'phone..." Fear is the key.

*****
We've just been given some 'training' as the above practices have now been introduced in our area. An interesting split in viewpoint was revealed - scenario: female comes to probation looking for her partner with child who is a bit dirty and hasn't got a coat on - its January - what would you do? Consensus amongst most PSO's was to ring social services immediately, with most PO's going Why? - and highlighting the many assumptions being made based on too little information.

The usual guilt-inducing rhetoric was trotted out by the trainers as per above 'how would you feel...on your watch...etc etc. Having recently watched Social Services drive a Hercules tank into someones life (Claire's law disclosure at their place of work so the whole world knew) only to 'drive out' again a couple of weeks later and close the case (so, there WAS no immediate risk to the family then,eh?) this blanket approach to regarding everyone as a risk will only cause more harm than good. Also, our local Children's Services offices are becoming a little shirty about all the extra assessment work we are passing their way, and the trainers were unable to confirm that a new Service Level Agreement was in place to cover this newly imposed role of ours. Luckily I'm pretty immune to attempts to try and make me feel guilty about what I do or don't do as a PO.

*****
I know that at least one CRC has had the job evaluation discussion (consultation) with the Trade Unions so the process of 'rationalisation' has started. The trouble with the whole TR mess is that so much is going wrong it has turned into white noise to the MoJ. Or perhaps they are deliberately asking questions about processes that ensure they receive only the answers they want.

There is a growing realisation, as you point out, that what CRCs have must change quickly now to ensure the business model works. The CRCs are now in the driving seat so expect pressure shifted upwards to the MoJ (deservedly so). I understand the question of business premises is a major issue in terms of cost and business efficiency. For new business models to work, the split must be more literal - to allow CRCs to operate in their existing co-locations was a fundamental error.

*****
I know that one CRC has a significant number of new PSOs because all of their POs have gone to the NPS and all their experienced PSOs are NPS trainees. Many of these new PSOs are still on their Probation period and cannot be confirmed because their caseloads are in such a mess but no-one knows whether it is the PSOs or the system that is at fault!!

*****
I have lost count of the number of 'briefings' emailed which contain lots of big pictures of shiny unknown people no doubt being paid a great deal of hard working tax payers money to do god knows what and tell me absolutely nothing in terms of what I need to know. I don't need to know their back story, what they enjoyed about Uni or how they are bubbling over with enthusiasm at the destruction of probation services. The self adoration is offensive.

*****
The blog is entirely accurate on the issues of IT and comments about premises...to such an extent that the CRC plans will be put back by "years!" As a consequence the CRC will have to pay larger fees for longer and so will seek alternatives for saving money. The obvious significant cost is staffing and so there is likely to be deeper staff reductions to save money. This is horrendous for those waiting for outcome decisions and should also be a worry to those who have transferred to NPS too - there is little shelter there. There is still plenty to be angry about; there is still plenty to fight for, so don't imagine this mess is yet a done deal.

*****
Parliament has been sold a duck, and the CRC's (fools to have been taken in, but that's what happens when your vision is clouded by £ signs). Sadly, they'll never admit it and will continue to shove square pegs into round holes - fuckwits. However, GC may be losing sleep as he has royally fucked off the wrong people, the private companies!

*****
Who has decided that in CRC the deadline for ISPs is now 10 days? How come it was previously 15 days with half the caseload, but all of a sudden our caseloads have doubled and the deadline for ISPs cut by a third - how can this be possible?? 

We've also been told under no circumstances can we be late with them - no professional judgements to inform the assessment - they must be added in an update. I and my colleagues feel like we can't do the job anymore it's almost like we're being pushed to breaking point so that we walk. 8 hours overtime I had to do last week just to get through the workload and we're exhausted.

*****
Completely agree with you it is impossible to maintain this for any length of time especially at the rate new orders are being allocated, along with those being released from custody. I am spending even more time behind my computer than I did previously - its a nightmare and this week I have been close to walking.

*****
Only walk at 5pm, same as I do. I know it might be easier said than done, until TR I regularly put in at least an hours overtime everyday, mainly paperwork as I spent the day doing something constructive such as working with clients, you know, the proper stuff. Now, come 5pm it's computer off, coat on and off out the door. I assure you the first time you try it you WILL struggle, each day gets easier. My work/life balance has improved considerably, I no longer have the 2pm heartburn I used to get and whilst it's still stressful and demanding, I do feel a lot better in myself. You going off on the sick is not helping anyone and if you think for one moment that your boss cares that he/she was the cause of it then you are sadly mistaken.

*****
This must be standard practice across Purple Futures CRCs - I feel so upset that I can't even see my workload management tool. I am obviously overworked but cant prove it - it's so wrong because I'm going like the clappers trying to do everything when the reality is I am on mission impossible. This is so unfair - we need sight of our workload management tool as our office are going crazy it's like we're deliberately being kept in the dark. The stark reality is some staff are starting to suffer mental health problems, interrupted sleep, agitation; anxiety and I tell you what, if ever there is a suicide as someones been worked to breaking point, CRC will have to answer to the Coroner and with the Probation family you upset one of us you upset us all - this will not be brushed under the carpet. CRCs get your act together!!

*****
I am concerned that colleagues are stating they are having to do the whole OASys assessment in 10 days. If their bosses in CRC/NPS read PI58/2014 it only mentions in section 2.3 that 'a plan' has to be completed. This does not have to be the OASys sentence plan. WWM CRC have provided a 2 page plan on Delius for us to complete and completing this in 10 days is a reasonable request.

*****
Do the CDC's have an overtime arrangement? If not, work only your contracted hours, don't try to fix it, 'tis broken beyond repair!

*****
I've noticed over the past fortnight or so the Data System Share on delius isn't working. This is a useful IT database that tells OM what prison establishment their offender is in plus it gives HDC/CRD/dates etc - I have missed this whilst it's been down - I also use this if I write to people as it gives their Noms & prison number.

*****
This is so deja vu. This is C-Nomis all over again, so many grand promises and tight deadlines that turn into delays, epic money pits and failure to deliver. CRC are supposedly bringing in new technology by the end of the year. If the government, bank rolling private IT contractors with lots of workers couldn't get that working, what hope in hell do each CRC have? C-Nomis cost £600 million plus.

Transforming IT at MoJ

From this mornings Guest Blog 32:-

"The IT systems that have been poorly managed since their inception are proving to be impervious to the changes necessary to facilitate their ‘home-working’ operating model.

It is this last rumour that needs consideration at the moment. Rumour has it that the technology required to allow provider’s own systems to ‘talk to’ nDelius, the main case management software for the entire operation, doesn’t work.

The inability of the MoJ to give anyone a straight answer means that some of the ‘facts’ around the issue are speculative but, in a nutshell, until the issue is resolved, the providers are irrevocably tied into the Steria IT infra-structure. This, in turn, means that not only is the proposed ‘flexible working’ (working alone from your car with an ipad) potentially on hold but that the CRCs will be unable to move out of the buildings where they are currently located until the MoJ have resolved the ‘bug’ that is currently exercising them is resolved. Rumour has it that this could be many months. This will have financial implications for both the CRCs and the NPS."

It generated this response:-

"The IT failure to 'system link' I was told was known about at the point of sale but overlooked as essentially it means that all of the proposed 'community working plans' were doomed before they got off the drawing board. Everyone in IT knew it but no-one would listen or chose to ignore...."

Compare and contrast this with the following extracts from a recent interview in Computer Weekly. I especially love this bit:-

  “It’s early days, but it’s fair to say the new systems are all being used as planned"

CIO interview: Ben Booth on transforming IT at the National Offender Management Service
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is the biggest agency of the UK Ministry of Justice (MoJ), with 60,000 staff. It has just concluded a year of deep IT-led transformation and is now shifting to a much sharper focus on digital. Last month, interim director of change and IT Ben Booth ended his year-long contract at the agency, having overseen the technology changes to support Transforming Rehabilitation (TR), one of the government’s top five change programmes.

Booth was hired in February 2014 as a temporary leader to cover for previous incumbent Martin Bellamy, who left to become the first chief information officer at Cambridge University. “My main role over the past year has been to make sure the technological changes to support the initiative were fully completed on time,” says Booth. “In terms of the technology and the business change, it’s been completely successful, to the extent that everything was ready and about 10% under budget.

“We delivered a significant programme, which is in very good shape. The system supporting Transforming Rehabilitation is solid and is being used. At the same time, we have been working on an upgrade to the technology infrastructure for prisons and NOMS HQ.”

The technology underpinning these processes – which had to be up and running on 1 February 2015 – involved taking data and access protocols designed around 35 probation trusts, which had to be restructured to support the new NPS and the various CRCs, as well as work to support integration with systems in prisons and courts. “To use private-sector terminology, we have integrated 35 separate acquisitions and divested 21 independent companies, together with setting up a separate business unit of 9,000 staff,” says Booth. “In all, 20,000 staff were affected. “To achieve this, we involved our two large suppliers, Steria and HP, together with smaller software houses and a team composed of civil servants, contractors and specialist service providers.”

By 2013, NOMS had replaced 43 separate case management systems with a single system, National Delius, from Beaumont Colson (BCL). According to Booth, the data in this system had to be restructured to support the new organisation and some functionality was added. The changes were carried out by Steria, which looks after the infrastructure and environment for probation, with BCL responsible for changes to the software code. HP provides the prison management software, which is a variant of a product from Syscon.

“It’s early days, but it’s fair to say the new systems are all being used as planned, with the first few offenders coming into the new regime and the new organisational structure of NPS and CRCs in place,” says Booth. Now that the technology foundations for NOMS are in place, the agency is better placed to pursue digital opportunities, in step with the government’s digital agenda. This was reinforced by the appointment of Booth’s permanent successor, Bryan Clark, who started work last week. Unlike Booth’s title of director of change and IT, Clark’s role is director of digital and change.

In prisons, NOMS is also looking at mobile technologies for prison officers and what can be provided in prisoners’ cells, to add to the landing-based kiosks that are already deployed. Upgrading ways of working is also on the agency’s digital radar and the plan is to move from a “pretty much desk-based model with desktops and PCs and so on” to doing much more with mobile technology and supporting more flexible working, says Booth.

Another key task he had was to “cement the relationship” between the agency and its two main IT suppliers, HP and Steria. HP provides services to more than 100 prisons around the UK, as well as to the NOMS HQ. Steria is the main supplier for probation. The model for technology provision across the MoJ is also changing under the Future IT Strategy (FITS), an approach based on ITIL methodologies and following government best practice to move away from a single supplier.

“This is a big change, as instead of one supplier across the whole of a particular area of business, we will have several, but covering the whole ministry,” says Booth. “FITS is projected to yield significant savings and we lose the dependence on single suppliers. However, the transition to the new model and subsequent service will need to be closely managed and the IT team is working with [MoJ CTO] Ian Sayer and his team in MoJ technology to make sure this all goes smoothly.”

Although FITS is the future, HP and Steria are still the two big technology suppliers for NOMS and are instrumental in the TR initiative. “We have been working very closely with them, and one of my tasks when I started in February last year was to make our relationship a much stronger partnership, as we had a very aggressive timescale to achieve delivery,” says Booth.

“That we delivered on time and under budget is, in my view, entirely due to this teamwork approach,” he says. However, with the introduction of FITS, the model for technology provision will change again, so at the same time as they have been implementing TR, both Steria and HP have been involved in planning the transition to the new strategy. According to Booth, the biggest challenge of leading the technology changes to support TR was the fixed-term timetable, which had no flexibility. However, backing from senior government figures was a major help during the process, he says.

“I suppose the key to success there was having the support of, and close interest from, top management, including the secretary of state, Chris Grayling, and NOMS chief executive Michael Spurr,” he adds. “Both took a close interest in the technology strand and met us in various forums almost on a weekly basis to look at progress. So we had an extremely tough timetable, but with very good support from the top.”

Given that the foundations of TR are now in place, it would be easy to suggest that his successor’s role will be more “business as usual” – but there is still a lot to be done. “I think the reality will be much more demanding – completing the changes in probation, working with FITS and developing a range of digital opportunities,” says Booth. “Also, there is much to be done to build on the existing capabilities of the team and there is the whole change agenda to be addressed.

“I’d say that Transforming Rehabilitation has got a good foundation, and my successor has got a good team, as well as the basis of a strong infrastructure. But there are still plenty of challenges for him to apply his initiative, skills and feelings to. It’s a very exciting role going forward.”

Finally, I'll round this off with something I spotted in the MoJ internal bulletin for senior managers:-

"Mercury system users will be aware that we had to bring the system down on the morning of Monday 9 March at short notice. This was because a disaster recovery exercise for P-NOMIS on Saturday 7 March resulted in an older data file being uploaded into Mercury. As a result incorrect locations were recorded against many of the prisoner profiles and those using the system on Monday morning were not able to see some prisoners located within their prison.

To update the system to reflect accurate prisoner locations Mercury needs to be rolled back to a date before the error occurred and then the relevant data loaded in sequence to bring the information on the system up to date. Unfortunately, this has not been possible given issues we have experienced in rolling the system back to an accurate position. While work is in hand to rectify this we have made the decison to require establishments to activate their contingency plans for 48 hours and revert to a paper based intelligence reporting system." 

Guest Blog 32

The rumours continue

One of the greatest problem that confronts the new owners of the snappily titled Community Rehabilitation Companies is rumour control. Six weeks into this new industry, most of us are still waiting to find out what any of it actually means and what is the answer to the redundancy related questions of how many and when (rather than if). 

Provider ‘briefings’ are proving as useful as MoJ briefings in terms of giving people the clarity they seek and the spinning is achieving very little other than leaving us increasingly giddy. The reality is that the MoJ ‘briefings’ and ministerial statements in Parliament have become so preposterous that it is almost impossible to take anything they say seriously. The knock on effect of this, however, is that the ‘briefings’ provided by the providers, because of their lack of content and depth, are increasingly being viewed in a similar light.

Probation staff are generally highly competent at unravelling the minimisations, justifications and distortions created by offenders seeking to ennoble their offending behaviour and mitigate their culpability. Using those skills to pick apart the information or lack thereof being provided by the MoJ or by the ‘newbies’ is all but unconscious and recognising the subtext merely routine. 

The absence of information is, as Probation practitioners (or is that ‘responsible’ practitioners?) well know, information in it’s own right. The unwillingness of an individual to provide information tells you an awful lot about the nature of that information and the motives behind its being withheld. It is, consequently, apparent to anyone with half a brain that the workforce are being left in the dark because

• The providers do not know the answers and, in many cases, didn’t even know there was a question;
• The high level models contained in the successful bids do not fit the real world; 
• The processes they had in mind have not been risk assessed in the real world and are likely to put offenders, staff, victims and the public at risk; 
• The ‘expertise’ of the partnerships is, in general, more rhetorical than real and they are furiously recruiting a legion of inexperienced and often unsuitable people to fill the posts; 
• The bidders are beginning to realise that they have been misinformed in the procurement process; 
• The MoJ has shown itself all but incapable of foreseeing the debacle that even the lowliest Probation worker saw coming a mile off; 
• The IT systems that have been poorly managed since their inception are proving to be impervious to the changes necessary to facilitate their ‘home-working’ operating model. 

It is this last rumour that needs consideration at the moment. Rumour has it that the technology required to allow provider’s own systems to ‘talk to’ nDelius, the main case management software for the entire operation, doesn’t work. 

The inability of the MoJ to give anyone a straight answer means that some of the ‘facts’ around the issue are speculative but, in a nutshell, until the issue is resolved, the providers are irrevocably tied into the Steria IT infra-structure. This, in turn, means that not only is the proposed ‘flexible working’ (working alone from your car with an ipad) potentially on hold but that the CRCs will be unable to move out of the buildings where they are currently located until the MoJ have resolved the ‘bug’ that is currently exercising them is resolved. Rumour has it that this could be many months. This will have financial implications for both the CRCs and the NPS.

Alarming Increases in both the prison populations and the use of conditional discharges in favour of community disposals, the removal of existing providers from Prisons and Probation premises before replacement services are available, resource centres being set up without any resources in evidence – the list of casualties is growing by the hour. Most of these are down to the recklessness of the Secretary of State and the MoJ and it is obvious to anyone with half an MBA that this is what happens when you proceed to change on this scale without proper pilots. No-one knows what is happening but, more worryingly, nobody knows what is going to happen as these ‘unforeseen’ consequences manifest themselves.

Grayling has opened Pandora’s Box and the new providers are as aghast at what is coming out of it as the rest of us are. Attempts to smooth the process with patronising and disingenuous briefings that ignore the presenting evidence are increasingly futile and the unwillingness of all parties to accept that they have done irrevocable damage to the ability of the Criminal Justice System to manage offenders in the community is really starting to make them look more than a little foolish. The sooner they cotton on to that fact, the sooner we can start trying to put this thing back together again.

Ishmael.

Guest Blog 31

Courts

There have been many past posts about the impact of TR changes upon the probation court role and the production of court reports. A colleague PO told me this week about her court team manager informing the team that their purpose was “purely to assist the court with its sentencing exercise nothing more”. This was in response to a discussion at their team meeting following staff raising concerns about criticism from the LDUs about the assessments made in reports prepared by court officers. They were told that it is up to the officer who gets allocated the case in the LDU to get the information they need, not court officers to provide this.

This team was also told that their priority is to deliver 90% of reports as oral reports with a time allocation of 90 minutes (interview, delivery in court plus completion of the CAT and RSR). A colleague PSO told me “we are now working like battery hens churning out report after report”.

The impact of this is being felt in LDU teams, both NPS and CRC and it is not without a significant financial cost to each ‘business’. NPS colleagues can no longer rely upon information from court colleagues’ assessment to complete Initial Supervision Plans and have to gather even basic information for assessments that previously would have been completed by CDOs. This results in either poor quality assessments to meet the ISP deadline, or extra pressure and time constraints on case managers to get the information for a good assessment and risk missing ISP targets. It could even mean duplication of work as OASys will need reviewing again when you do eventually get information which would have been routine in a good PSR. 

If you think this doesn’t matter, I can assure you that a colleague interviewed for an SFO investigation very recently told me the focus was upon her OASys assessment. It appears to me that we are being forced to work to new lower standards but will be measured, should something go wrong, on the previous higher standards.

The CRC team has the same issues of course but they have another dimension too. They have concerns about sentencing not being targeted to suit their business model. I understand representations have already been made to the court managers regarding proposals given in reports. A business model has been constructed to show how ORA sentences should be as the CRC now operates in the world of income minus costs, to survive. It appears that the CDOs have their part to play in the viability of the CRC.

There are too many unintended consequences of TR to measure but, my concern is that all of our jobs, CRC and NPS, are inextricably linked to the court process and it was always thus. What seems to be happening is a change in focus from a cohesive system flowing from the courts to a system of probation court staff being instructed to deliver piecemeal work disconnected from practice.

You will note I have not mentioned the client/service user/offender. That is because in this process they are now just the raw material of TR….. aren’t they?

A PO

Guest Blog 30

From Probation to Fostering?

I sat down with my friend google the other day and searched for magazine publications on probation. I have seen enough written over the last few years to know that working in probation is an incredibly hard area amidst radical structural change which, as an outsider, seems to be causing a lot of resentment.

It seems that wherever you look these days, any government funded system is creaking and without doubt at times failing. Children’s services is no different. The core service struggles, attitudes are changing, no longer do financial considerations get spoken about in hushed tones, these days making decisions based on finance and not children is an open discussion, although central government might have you think they have made things better for everyone.

Irrespective of the challenges, positive outcomes for children continue to be made, and in the main this is down to the skills and dedication of foster carers, many of whom feel at times they do so alone, or, as is the case at UK Fostering, they do it alongside us when at times more local government support is desired. It’s not all broken and I don’t mean to negate that some elements of local government continue to achieve great things, what I do mean to emphasize is that foster carers are doing amazing things in difficult times and without them, our society would be heading to an even more rocky path.

I ponder that some people working in probation may have a perhaps skewed perception of the success or otherwise of the care system, being as so many adults within probation or prison services have had some contact with the system. But of course there will always be thousands who do not enter the criminal justice system as adults because they have received the care and opportunity they needed.

One of my best ever foster carers was a probation officer. She worked full time and her husband was the main foster carer. She was however, fully involved. They specialised in caring for young offenders. You know the type that have got into low level crime, followed the crowd, fought to survive from a young age in inappropriate ways. The type that society judges the moment the word ‘offender’ is added to their profile.

No one was too difficult for them because they had heard it all before and the probation officer carer said explicitly that whatever profile of child I was to send to her would unlikely compare to the adults she was dealing with every day. It turned out her experience gave her the confidence and skills to make a real difference to approximately 40 children over a 10 year period, one of whom I now employ as a mentor and is a great example.

Having been closely involved in a pan European study funded by the EU and managed by BAAF on alternatives to custody for children remanded, it is clear that we are more advanced than some other countries in our thinking. This is great news. We are geared up to support more children from offending backgrounds into suitable fostering arrangements. The difficult reality is actually finding these carers in the first place.

Of course there are many foster carers that care for young people involved in offending behaviour. Many of them understand a child is not defined by their past actions. Unfortunately not enough of them exist who either have the capacity, confidence, will or desire to work with these young people. 

I sincerely believe that probation officers, those working in the probation service, and certainly those that may be wanting to find new ways to make a difference to society, could well make a significant impact to the adults of tomorrow who at this stage are a much younger proposition.

Thank you to Jim Brown who has agreed to post our blog when I introduced myself as someone desperately trying to find new people to support our young people who otherwise end up in a last resort form of residential care when they could in theory thrive in a family environment.

If you think you might be interested in finding out more about youth offending fostering please do not hesitate to contact me at tim.mcardle@ukfostering.org.uk tel 01322 473243, www.ukfostering.org.uk

Tim McArdle