What Health Care?

Here's an interesting LSE blog that contains information long known to all probation staff, but that may come as news to the privateers now running 70% of probation:- 

Healthcare policy for those on probation operates on a wing and a prayer.

Over 200,000 offenders on are probation in the UK. Recently, probation has been extended to all those released from prison. Offenders are often socially excluded, deprived and highly vulnerable, with a high prevalence of physical and mental health problems compared to the general population. Here, Charlie Brooker outlines how this vulnerable population can fall through gaps in healthcare policy.

Comin’ in on a wing and a prayer
Comin’ in on a wing and a prayer
Though there’s one motor gone
We can still carry on
Comin’ in on a wing and a prayer
(Adamson and McHugh [1943] – songwriters)

Previous research estimates that 39 per cent of offenders experience a mental illness whilst on probation. Suicide rates in prison rightly receive much media attention, yet suicide rates in probation are also much elevated in comparison to the general population but receive little consideration. Mental health treatment requirements exist as a sentencing option for the courts when considering prison or probation for an offence, but they’re rarely used. Nationally, they constitute 0.1 per cent of all requirements.

The health of probationers compares highly unfavourably with the general population, and even with the more unhealthy of the population (the lower social classes). This is the case for both physical and mental health.

Many offenders have (co-occurring) substance misuse problems. In the first two weeks following release, mortality rates are 12 times higher than for the general population. In a nested case control study, Bingswanger and colleagues established some of the clinical risk factors involved. These included: injecting drug use; tobacco use; cirrhosis; panic disorder and use of psychiatric medications. Probationers also experience elevated levels of long-term illness and disability.

The need for continuing and integrated healthcare is clear.

However, issues like mistrust of healthcare professionals, transient lifestyles, negative attitudes amongst healthcare staff towards offenders, problems with inter-agency communication, and inflexible/insufficient service provision mean that offenders’ access to healthcare is less than their needs. Many offenders are not registered with a GP and only access healthcare during crises.

To improve the health of this population and reduce health inequalities it is essential that they have access to health services which meet their needs. This would also enable us to uphold the principle of equivalence and reduce both re-offending and the use of crisis services (and the costs associated with this).

Probation services and arrangements for commissioning healthcare for offenders have both been the subject of recent reforms. Probation provision is now split into the National Probation Service – a public-sector service managing high-risk offenders; and Community Rehabilitation Companies – a mix of private and voluntary sector agencies managing medium and low-risk offenders.

Clinical commissioning groups should now commission healthcare for offenders on probation, but previous research suggests that many of them are unaware of this responsibility. The most recent study found that in 2013, 7 per cent of these groups directly funded healthcare in probation, a figure that declined to 1 per cent in 2014. Such commissioning should be informed by Joint Strategic Health Needs Assessments overseen by Directors of Public Health. It is iniquitous that all 136 prisons in England and Wales have been subject to local health needs assessments by either NHS England Area Teams or local public health groups whereas the same is true of only 25 per cent of probation services.

Some Mental Health Trusts do fund ‘own account’ mental health services into probation from their block contracts, but again this proportion has declined from 70 per cent in 2013 to 61 per cent in 2014. The two most likely services provided were clinics in probation offices and support for multi-agency public protection arrangements – the latter being a statutory responsibility. Clinic services vary but often consist of two hours per week where a mental health professional is available to give advice. There has also been a recent national initiative to provide professional support in probation for those with personality disorder. However, the impact of this scheme has yet to be reported.

Previously, government has outlined a role for the probation service in England and Wales in offender health involving advising the courts on alternatives to prison, and working in partnership with other agencies to ensure that offenders’ health and social care needs are addressed. There are links between health and offending, and health interventions can reduce crime. Improved health has been cited as a pathway out of re-offending, and considering offenders’ physical and mental health needs in sentence planning using the Offender Assessment System screening tool is an established part of probation staff’s role. However, there are concerns that local-level partnerships between probation and health services may break down following the restructure of probation and (for the reasons stated above), improving offenders’ health and access to healthcare remains a challenge.

Due to this high level of health needs and disproportionately low level of service access, the NHS, through clinical commissioning groups, should be commissioning healthcare locally for probationers with an in-depth understanding of needs and with a view to removing current barriers to service access for this population. Until then ‘we’re comin’ in on a wing and a prayer’.

National Treasure Speaks Out

Michael Palin recently delivered the annual Longford Lecture and the full text can be found here. Entitled 'Collateral damage: The effects of prison sentences on offenders' families' Michael Gove was in the audience and although well worth reading in full, I've taken the liberty of selecting the following extract:- 

There is a system specifically designed to help offenders and ex-offenders, and that is probation. Probation officers have to assess some people with special needs and very acute problems. A probation report can impact greatly on the families of the offender. It is a chance for the background of their lives to be examined and their special circumstances discussed. But, like many other areas of the justice system the Probation Service has been affected by cuts and reforms designed to save money. Though the most dangerous highrisk ex-offenders still remain within the National Probation Service, the 35 public sector probation trusts were last year broken up and replaced with 21 privately-run "community rehabilitation companies" 

These have begun to cut human jobs in favour of automated facilities, which seems risky in an area where the efficacy of one to one help is generally accepted as the best way back. Those employed by the old Probation Service have had to put themselves up for re-employment with the new private providers. And they're not happy about it. As one of them put it, "the worst thing has been the attack on our morale. We've got the message loud and clear that our work isn't valued" 

1800 staff have left the probation service in the last year. It's hard to know how this loss of staff, specifically qualified to deal with unpopular and often dangerous people, can be squared with the oft-quoted commitment to reduce re-offending. 

Some prison officers I spoke to felt that one aspect of the re-organisation of the probation system, the idea of "transformative rehabilitation", was having exactly the opposite effect. Those with one-year sentences can now only be let out on licence. A single failure to meet any of the terms of the licence such as checking in for interview can result in them being taken straight back into custody. In practice this has resulted in a jump in numbers re-offending. This also raises the question of how many of the shortest custodial sentences are the best way to deal with the problem. A relative of a young offender told me paradoxically of how much more damaging shorter sentences can be than longer ones. They are predominantly served on younger males, many still in the education system. A year inside can mean the loss of GCSE qualifications which can set the offender at a huge disadvantage for the rest of their lives. 

But I'm an optimist and my interest in the whole subject is to try and see the positive side and to try and do what I can to understand the problem and to help those who are directly involved in offering support to the families themselves. I want very much to see chinks of light in so many stories of unrelieved gloom - some hope that things might be getting better. That we can learn from all these heart-rending stories.

When seeing dark clouds, or looking for silver linings, two things must be remembered. One is that no two cases are ever the same. We are not dealing with a certain class of person, or a certain mindset, we are dealing with individual cases all different one from the other in the way that we are all different one from another. 

The second thing to remind ourselves is that so much of the anecdotal evidence involves the potent combination of drugs, poverty and deprivation. From which one can only draw the conclusion that despite all the good work that is going on in the rehabilitation and re-education of offenders, there is nothing much that can be done whilst poverty is endemic in the system. The reality is pretty desperate. Figures from the Institute of Fiscal Studies in 2015 showed that 16 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. Child poverty stood at nearly 19% and absolute child poverty at nearly 20%, That's over 4 million children in poverty. And to be poor in our society is not the same as being poor in many of the places I've visited across the world. 

We are a developed country, and to be poor here is to have your nose pressed against a well-stocked window, with a finger constantly beckoning you to come inside. Possessions are power. The more you have the more you will be listened to, the less you have the more vulnerable you are to anything that will desensitise you from the real world. 

So let's not sit here and shake our heads about families who get into trouble and think that the answer is bigger prisons and a faster justice service. What we should be thinking about is how we can change a society that has 20% of its children in absolute poverty. 

But, as people are fond of saying these days, we are where we are - which roughly translated means don't blame me. If we are to be positive, we must not allow ourselves to be discouraged. We must look hard at what can be done, what is being done, and what needs to be done to help and support families of prisoners here and now. 

The state has not had a great record in this area. Prison reform is not a votewinner at the best of times, and certain sections of the media, though not of course, the Daily Telegraph, have a knee-jerk reaction to anything that they feel smacks of consideration for criminals. But something is clearly not working. The most recent report from HM Inspector of Prisons makes sober reading. "Outcomes reported on by the inspectorate", it concluded, "had declined in all areas and were the worst for ten years". The number of assaults in prison had increased, as had deaths in prison and attacks on staff. Overcrowding and staff shortages were blamed for this overall decline in safety. 

The Government is aware of the problem. Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Justice, pointed out in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference in July, that re-offending costs taxpayers £13 billion pounds a year. Almost two-thirds of those serving short sentences will return to prison within just a year of release. He echoed the conclusion of the Inspector of Prisons that even a small reduction in the prison population could free up sufficient cash to allow a lot more rehabilitation work. 

He went on to declare that the biggest failure of all in the Criminal Justice system was, and I quote, "the failure in our prisons" and he called on all concerned to put a new and unremitting emphasis on reform, rehabilitation and redemption. Individuals should never be defined by their worst moments. Prisoners should not be seen as liabilities, but as assets. The cause of prison reform, he concluded, should inspire us all. 

Fine words, very fine words, and it is encouraging to hear a government commit the state so unequivocally to rehabilitation and redemption. And in the last week we have seen encouraging signs that action will follow, with the announcement that some of the older, grimmer urban prisons are to be closed and sold off for housing. I must say, I can't wait to see how the marketing boys run with this one. Will we soon be seeing The Scrubs Quarter ? Or Pentonvilletto, Luxury Living a stones throw from the City, or the Mansion on Brixton Hill - your very own executive escape? 

I’m delighted that the Justice Secretary is so firmly committed to prison reform, but I can't help wondering how much he will be able to achieve when his own Chancellor is asking for 40% cuts across all unprotected departments. 

Which brings me back to the theme of this lecture. That whatever grand plans are being made, one of the modest, but eminently achievable ways of tackling the problem of harassed staff and overcrowded gaols remains a matter of valuing, maintaining and encouraging family support. Government figures confirm that chances of re-offending are 39% higher among those who have not received visits in prison than in those who have. And yet figures also show that almost half of all offenders lose contact with their families when they go to prison. 

Something clearly needs to be done to try and bridge this gap. If the Government accepts the implication that families are such an important element in their declared goal of rehabilitation, then they must make it a priority, not a side-issue. This requires effort and commitment right through the criminal justice system. It requires an investment in people as well as premises. People with the skill and the patience to deal with all the intricacies of family access including the damage done by separating mothers from their children. People qualified and experienced in detecting those with special needs, including mental health problems or learning difficulties, who shouldn't be in prison in the first place. It means making better use of community penalties. There are practical improvements too. Like financial provision for visits. At present non-working parents receive assistance, parents who are working, albeit on a low wage, just to keep food on the table, have to pay for their own transport. 

They should consider making the family more welcome in prisons, extending family days, providing areas in which the family can be reunited in a nonthreatening environment with looser time limits. These have been found to be highly successful in maintaining family links. The provision of family and visitor centres outside prisons where family members can wait in comfort and security should be made a priority. A reduction in the cost of phone calls from prison, currently four times as expensive as BT landline charges, would encourage prisoners to keep in touch with their families. Greater use of ROTL - Release on Temporary License - would mean that important home visits could happen. 

The National Offender Management Service is trying to address these issues, encouraging parents and children to stay in touch with more family days and in a couple of open prisons, facilities for children to sleep over for a night. 

All these measures require extra resources. The more families that visit, the more prison staff have to be available to organise and supervise the facilities.

Turning Purple

Purple Futures have started rolling out their 'Interchange' programme and the nominated cascade trainers have a 125 page manual to digest prior to delivery across the 6 CRCs. Here's a taster:-  

This document is provided to give you an overview of the core modules that are integral to the Interchange operating model. Reading this information prior to the Train the Trainer event will give background and context to the training. The information below is an extract of the key principles from the Interchange Delivery Handbook, which will be provided to staff when they attend the Core Module training.

Two key elements of the operating model, the Enablers of Change Assessment and the Interchange Plan, are predicated upon the implementation of the new Case Management System - Interlink, and this is referenced throughout the document. To enable staff to begin to work with the core modules, we have developed processes and templates to be used in the interim period, details of how these will work are contained within the Interchange Delivery Handbook.

There is some difference in language, key changes being:

• Offender is now Service User 
• Assessment becomes Enablers Of Change Assessment 
• Sentence Plan becomes Interchange Plan 

The events have been designed to enable you to become involved in defining and designing the training you will be delivering and after the Train the Trainers event you will be provided with packs containing all the relevant materials required to deliver the staff training. We will also provide a contact group to provide ongoing support whilst you are delivering the training. We look forward to seeing you at the event. 

1.1 Background
Service Users will undergo their Interchange Induction Module at their first contact to prepare them for the full assessment meeting with their Case Manager and start preparing the plan.

All service users allocated to the CRC will receive a pre-assessment induction (the Interchange Induction Module) that explains how their sentence will be managed and how they will be expected to contribute towards their own rehabilitation. The Induction Module will introduce Service Users to the features of Interchange approach, build the motivation to change, develop planning skills and initial rehabilitative goals.

The where and when will be defined the CRC depending on numbers of attendees and location. The new approach to induction provides the opportunity to deliver service differently, to get Service Users and volunteers involved in delivering the induction and supporting inductees with the self-assessment. The induction will provide the opportunity to address any barriers to future compliance and clearly outline the expectations of the Service User and the CRC. Consideration should be given to the environment, refreshments and learning needs. CRCs will ensure that space and staff time is allowed at group inductions for service users whom may have pressing needs to be supported and be seen on a one to one basis.

1.2 Induction Session outline
The purpose of the induction session is to introduce Service Users to the Interchange Model, to ensure that they understand and adhere to their court order or licence and take responsibility for their behaviour and actions. It also begins the assessment and planning process with a self-assessment.

The desired outcome is that everyone experiences a collaborative and safe introduction to the CRC and gains a full understanding of what is expected of them and what they can gain from being on a community order or licence and working with their case manager. Therefore, it is important that particular attention is given to creating a safe environment for all. A motivational responsive facilitation style is linked intrinsically to inclusion and this should be promoted throughout the session. Where ever possible, facilitators need to be aware of any issues, which may affect individual participation and learning, prior to the session and ensure that they provide help and support as required. This session can also be delivered individually for service users identified as vulnerable for any reason.

It is recommended that peer mentors/volunteers will be available to support service users when they arrive, encourage compliance and wherever possible to co-facilitate the session.

Throughout, there should be an emphasis on recognising the skills and achievements that participants have, whilst encouraging them to access support and help, which will reduce the likelihood of re-offending.

The session is designed to last for 1.5 hours if delivered to a group. The suggested timings of the exercises are flexible. A short break may be taken at the discretion of the facilitator. This induction is suitable for both multi-requirement orders and standalone UPW. For standalone UPW cases this session should be followed by an UPW induction to include Health & Safety, UPW rules and requirements signed.

As recommended by HMIP report ‘where a group or duty induction is used, an appointment with the Service User manager should always be provided as part of the processes’.

The Interchange Induction can be delivered in a group or one to one setting. CRCs will define which dependant on numbers, and suitability. The Induction module has been tested in West Yorkshire; key recommendations arising from this are:

• CRCs to provide information that can be given to the service user at court, prior to attending their induction, setting out duration, telephone numbers and what to expect when they arrive. 
• Where group inductions are offered ensure prior to attendance that the service user is suitable and or is happy to undertake a group induction.
• Be prepared to undertake one to one inductions with service users who do attend the group setting and are not comfortable or disruptive. 
• Wherever practicably possible arrange for the allocated Case Manager to be present at the induction or immediately afterwards to meet the service user. 
• Consideration to be given for ensuring Unpaid Work staff are involved to ensure correct allocation to work groups for service users with an UPW requirement 
• Where ever possible use service users to support the delivery of induction and to talk about their own experience, either in person or a short video 
• The setting for induction, either group or one to one should be as informal as possible and include refreshments.

Welcome and Introductions
Welcome the participants. Introduce yourself and ensure that they are familiar with housekeeping details. Facilitators can do a round of introductions if they feel it is appropriate. Give a brief overview of what is included in the induction session including timings to set the context.

Introduction of the Interchange Model
Briefly describe the interchange model, emphasising:

• The importance of identifying where you are and where you want to be. 
• The importance of planning, setting goals and reviewing progress. 
• The availability of relevant interventions. Explain the director of services available to all service users and give examples of some of the interventions/services on offer.
• Explain the ability to develop a record of achievement throughout the order and give examples e.g. CV, certificates, qualifications
• Access to community resources.
• The aim of achieving better outcomes in order to build a positive future.

Encourage a brief discussion with the aim of emphasising the advantages of engaging in the process and the opportunities available. Use the 6 Core Modules to describe the process explaining at they are at the first stage of the journey:

• Induction 
• Assessment 
• Planning 
• Networking 
• Review 
• Exit 

Understanding the Order or Licence
Ensure that they understand the requirements of their court order or licence and the consequences of non-compliance. The requirements of the order/licence should be made clear by emphasising the responsibilities of the service user rather than delivering a list of ‘rules’. Give a brief overview of RAR/SSO/Activity days and/or UPW activities.

Ensure that the Service Users are aware of the following:

• The importance of attending as instructed. 
• The name and contact details of their Case Manager. 
• The consequence of not complying with their court order/licence. 
• Emphasise the need to inform their Case Manager of a change of address 

Give everyone a copy of the ‘Code of Conduct’ and ensure they understand the expectations regarding their attendance and behaviour and sign it.

Exercise – Where am I now?
Explain that they will now move on to the first part of the assessment module with a self-assessment.

Highlight that it is useful to consider carefully where we are in different aspects in our lives in order to decide whether we want to make changes. Guide them to consider each section in turn and give themselves a score as to how satisfied they are with that aspect of their lives. On a scale of 0 – 5 with 0 indicating that they are not dissatisfied and 5 indicating that they feel they are very satisfied. The emphasis should be on whether these issues are likely to increase or decrease the likelihood of them re-offending. Have some pre-prepared examples and encourage them to think about the reasons for their score.

The following should be considered in each of the boxes:

Personal relationships and support networks:
Suggest that they ask themselves whether they have positive and supportive relationships.

Health and well-being:
This covers physical and mental health as well as any issues relating to problems resulting from their use of drugs or alcohol.

Home and money:
This covers accommodation and finances. Do you need help with housing? Do they have problems with your current housing? Are you claiming all benefits?

Education and work:
Relates to ETE - this should also include any voluntary work and any other contribution they are able to make.

Friends and support:
Relates to their social groups and networks and whether they feel these are positive and supportive. It also includes whether they feel they are in control of their lives and their own behaviour.

Motivation and Achievements:
As it suggests, this relates to whether they feel this is an area of concern for them. The more hope they feel of having a positive offending free future, the higher the score.

It is important to deliver the self-assessment in a positive and supportive way, whilst encouraging the participants to be honest and realistic. A useful question is to ask what score would be given by someone who knows them very well and has their interest at heart. Ensure volunteers/mentors are available to support where identified.

Where would I like to be?
Explain that we will now repeat the exercise and consider where they would like to be in 5 years’ time. Guide them to consider each box in turn and encourage them to score where they would like to be on a scale of 0 – 5 Again a score of 0 indicates that they are dissatisfied and 5 that they are completely satisfied with this area of their life. They should briefly describe or draw an image of the situation they would like to be experiencing in each area of their life. It is likely that they will indicate that they would like to be positive in each area. Next lead a discussion to highlight the differences from where they are now to where they would like to be.

Guide the contributions by asking questions such as:

• How easy would it be to get to where they want to be?
• Which area of their life would need most change to get to where they want to be?
• Have they already made changes? If so, how did they achieve it?
• How successful were they?

Discussion – Where do I go from here?
Explain that they have successfully completed first session of a series of 6 core sessions that everyone must attend. Praise their contribution and the fact that they have made that important first step.

Explain that there are also a range of activities that each person will be required to attend depending on their particular court order or licence and the assessment and goals that are set with their own case manager.

Explain that the next session will consist of a meeting with their own officer in order to plan a programme of activities. The idea is to work with them in a collaborative way and build on their own assessment and set goals.

Re-emphasise that there will be a ‘networking approach’ throughout in order to encourage them to identify ways in which they can build positive relationships and access support services, employment, training and education. Reinforce that all achievements will contribute towards their ‘Record of Achievement’. Re-assure them that help will be given when required.

Explain the arrangements for attending the next appointment with their Case Manager. Give out a copy of the evaluation sheet and ask them to complete it.  

New Probation Priorities

The prison visits I had booked, to meet long sentenced prisoners for the first time, have been cancelled. To save money. Boss has told me I need to cut back on the home visits I do, to make some savings. 6 months ago she told me I needed to do more.

******
Got the timetables for 2 oral hearings in Jan 2016! I've written back to ask, a) does the prison have video conferencing and b) is it okay with the parole board, that I am attending via such a medium? Not cos I'm lazy, my head of LDU has said we cannot travel outside the county! Can't wait to hear the sighs from the Parole Board and astute legal eagles, who sometimes rely on us to give considered evidence and risk management plans!

******
We have been told we can't go to our local prisons either.

******

Everything going to dogs! Heard today, from someone cascading from a learning event, that we're soon to be told, not to use services of CRC, but to shop around or DIY! Apparently, their too expensive, ie £3000 for one referral to a DV programme! I should imagine that will be the fee, even if case doesn't complete! Yahoo! You couldn't make this shit up! If I was really a conspiracy theorist, I might think this is the rationale behind those on the day reports, being done on the hoof and just sent onto CRC projects! Make em rich!

******

From Dec 2015 NPS will not have to use services from CRC, which cost, but can go anywhere for services so long as they don't cost. Huge drop in referrals to Programmes, ETE and Accommodation because there is a charge to NPS whereas before they were free. Absolutely ridiculous!

******

After a right good night out Ive made the mistake of browsing and coming back to the probation reality. Thankfully our plight is nothing compared to the horrors being faced in Paris, Kenya and Syria.

TR was designed to be a failure and has achieved its purpose - the end of probation. E3 is a management model designed to restructure and decimate what's left of probation. E3 and the Civil Service to the NPS is the same as what Sodexo is to the CRC's - one big axe.

Probation management lie and tell us that new measures like E3 and the instruction to downgrade court reports are blueprints and drafts ... "Let's give it a chance" they say. We already know the outcome and sadly London NPS is already implementing these "methods" and the rest will follow. Not so long ago London Probation Trust was the first to sell off community service - now 70% of probation has been sold.

Whether your with the CRC's or NPS it's all about the money for those in control. There is no emphasis on what works, they don't care about good practice and all the evidence for 'end to end offender management' no longer matters.

As always, managers and directors will work us all the way to the slaughterhouse - and they'll be no enhanced redundancy or golfing handshakes for those on the frontline. So in the meantime all we can do is what we've always done;

Do what you're required to do. Clock in, clock out and come to terms with working for a shoddy employer. If they want short reports and "efficient" working then that's what you give them. Work your hours and no more. Record your hours and tasks, and email your manager every time you're about to or do go over your contracted hours. If they want overtime let them pay for it as session work and unsocial hours.

Use team meetings, director briefings and whatever public forums they use to introduce new messages to voice your objections and concerns. Join/rejoin a union and make them fight for us. Napo is rubbish but it's better we've a pathetic weakling fighting our corner than nobody at all.

In reports, in letters, in emails and at meetings and hearings, call yourself a PROBATION OFFICER. Every PO I know signed up to help, rehabilitate and change people for the better. We didn't train to be 'offender managers' and we didn't ask to be civil service robots. Be honest with courts, prisons, parole boards, and all the rest - probation isn't what it once was. It's not our job to explain and apologise for the shite forced on us by probation directors.

PO's, PSO's, Admins and support staff - we're all colleagues and in this mess together. Be nice to each other. Remember there are other jobs and professions out there and THEY WANT YOU.

*******
CRC charge NPS. NPS until Dec have to use CRC services. After that they can choose their providers but they have no money to pay for the services.

Latest From Napo 86

Blog posted yesterday by Napo General Secretary:- 

E3 is this to become the line in the sand?

I am seriously squeezed for time at this late hour of the week (and not feeling 100%) so will have to use Monday's long journey to Exeter on route to see members in South Western Branch to fill in some detail on the other hot topics that have emerged.

Key consideration for us all this last few days, with the publication of the E3 blueprint, has to be: just how further can our members be pushed given the disasters of TR, the relentless austerity agenda, the move to unintelligible and rigid Civil Service HR policies and the continuing problems that members face by way of massive workloads and operational chaos in many parts of the NPS?

For on the back of all this comes the latest potential assault on professional standards, grade boundaries and ultimately terms and conditions, in the shape of the generic E3 job descriptions for the NPS.

Old responses no longer available

Ordinarily, in days long gone, we could have told NOMS via the NNC and the probable support of the employers on the Probation Association (oh halcyon days) that heaping a massive grading exercise on members who are reporting that they are close to meltdown after the most despicable piece of political chicanery (TR to the casual reader) would be well, a not very good idea to say the least.

Times are sadly much different now, and in the absence of a hard hitting campaign of industrial action by the probation unions, then engagement has to be the initial response.

That ought not to be mistaken for acquiescence, or that we have ruled out asking that question at some stage given the potential threats posed by the various plans that have been previewed in the E3 blueprint, especially as we are already receiving a lot of traffic which suggests that many members are outraged at what they see as generic job descriptions that bear no reality to real life and, moreover, offer future detriment rather than reward.

For us it will be about trying to shape the engagement strategy in a way that will help make some sense out of the shambles that Grayling heaped on you and use this to try and achieve our aspirations on pay and much else besides.

Make no mistake, the E3 project will stretch our resources at Chivalry Road and whilst we will have no problem standing up to the employer, as members expect us to do, we cannot deliver it all from the centre.

That is why we have a healthy number of practitioner members who have volunteered to take part in the E3 work streams and those who have come forward to become fully trained job evaluators.

They will bring considerable expertise to their role, which is not to represent members but represent their interests (hence the project time that they will be granted and credit where it is due to NOMS on that score). Their work will supplement our efforts around the negotiating table.

Together we are stonger; but you know that already.

Good weekend

Omnishambles Wins Award!

The Project and Programme Management Award

Transforming Rehabilitation: MoJ

The Transforming Rehabilitation Programme was one of the most ambitious and complex sets of reforms introduced by the Coalition Government. Focussing on a group of offenders with often deep-rooted and intractable needs in a period of fiscal restraint, the programme needed to find ways to meet those needs for less. As a result, the programme aimed to introduce wholesale structural changes to the way probation and prisons work, to bring together the best of the public, voluntary and private sectors, and facilitate greater innovation in service provision. In a little over two years, the programme designed and delivered a completely new operating model for probation – navigating a challenging policy environment to innovate and allow rehabilitation to be extended to the most prolific offenders. This involved: new primary legislation; new organisational models; new processes spanning courts, prisons and probation; and a complex commercial strategy to build a diverse market for rehabilitation services. Collaborative project and programme management were key for delivery and close working relationships, coupled with strong and transparent governance, were significant to the success of the programme.

(See here for full list of winners)

Going to Hell in a Handcart 2

Following on from yesterday's post regarding new plans for PSR's in London, readers might be interested to see what London Napo's thoughts on it are:-

Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the new PSR strategy for London in regard to the production of Pre Sentence Reports across London area.

We have consulted with some of our members both in Courts and in field teams. Overall, the initial response has been positive, particularly with the general principle of only completing a full PSR & OASys on high risk of harm, Scheduled (15) cases. We welcome that there is a recognition of increasing demands on field, in terms of caseloads, Parole Reports, Oral Hearings and the numerous additional tasks associated with case management.

We appreciate that the proposals are now live, and due to be rolled out in London imminently. We are also aware that this model appears to be the direction of travel for the NPS.

We are of the view that in order for the strategy to be effective the following should be fully considered:

• Resource implications:

Correct levels of staffing will be required in the new reconfigured Court teams in order to ensure efficient and effective service delivery. We understand that with the greater use of Short Format Reports, especially in the Magistrates' Court, should be supplemented with good quality training in report writing and risk assessments skills. We appreciate that there are already experienced members of Court staff who have the skills and knowledge to assist with such training.

• We welcome the distinction, and the provisions provided for cases of domestic violence. We however have some concerns that the expectation is for them to be completed in five working days. Thought should be given to key partnership agencies who are required to provide us with information in a timely fashion. Suffice to say that all key service level agreements will need to be revisited. We are aware that some key agencies are finding it difficult to sustain their service level agreement with the NPS. For example, safeguarding checks will need to be completed fairly quickly this has not always been the case in some courts. Given the amount of time allocated for the preparation of these new reports, we can only surmise that our members will continue to be under stress. We would hope the model allows flexibility in such cases.

• We understand that there is essentially no change to the way high risk of harm (dangerousness assessments) are allocated and understand that these reports will be prepared by qualified Probation Officers.

• We also are of the view that there should be clear guidance on cases which fall outside of the high risk of harm dangerousness assessments but requiring a full PSR and OASys, particularly those involving mental health, personality disorders, chronic substance misuse and domestic violence, not necessarily deemed to be high risk but cases displaying complex offending behaviour needs.

• We would like to be assured that any new templates are AT compatible.

Overall we welcome this strategy with professional judgement central to the decision making process. We also note that the E3 Blue Print is recommending dedicated court teams and appropriate administrative staff which appear to be in line with this new strategy.

Going to Hell in a Handcart

With the 'marketisation' of probation, everything's now about the money and here we have another step towards eroding the PSR, but "HMCTS and Magistrates welcome the direction of travel" apparently. Would that be going to hell in a handcart I wonder?  

Strategy for the production of Pre-Sentence Reports across NPS London

The revised Probation Instruction ‘Determining Reports for Court’ supports the national move towards producing a greater number of Pre-Sentence Reports as ‘Short Format Reports’. This is due to be published Autumn 2015, NPS London is working towards this model of practice. The direction of travel was previously set by PI 05/2011 and the new PI builds on practice that is already underway.

The PI will change the language of Pre-Sentence Reports introducing the use of Short Format Reports (SFRs) to enable the NPS to increase the efficiency with which reports are provided to Court and to allow the flexibility to use staff resources to meet the demands from Court under the Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ) agenda. SFRs replace both fast delivery reports (FDRs) and oral reports. The expectation is that the report will be delivered in the most effective manner to support safe sentencing. The current FDR and oral Report templates should continue to be used in the interim.

HMCTS and Magistrates welcome the direction of travel of the PI. The demands on Courts are increasing and they want to receive succinct reports delivered orally on the day where possible. Only where the Court requires a dangerousness assessment or in cases of very high risk should a standard delivery report be provided and a full OASys assessment. Prompt sentencing is also in many cases better for victims as it facilitates a speedy resolution to what can be protracted proceedings.

These developments take into account the following interdependencies:

• changes in Court practices
• demands of TSJ and better case management at Crown Courts; the changes in the nature of the NPS workload
• increasing demands on field PO’s in terms of caseload, parole reports, oral hearings and additional tasks
• use of standard delivery reports and their place within the contractual arrangements between NPS and CRC;
• the purpose of sentencing as set out in the new Probation Instruction 
• the balance of the work between pre and post sentence elements of an offender journey.

Nationally, London remains the most expensive among NPS Divisions in the production of reports for Court. Part of the rationale for this work is to reduce the cost of producing pre-sentence reports at Court. While this cannot be achieved overnight, this is an objective we are working towards over the next 3 months.

The following set of principles are to be applied across London Courts:

1. Courts to make every effort to complete reports on the day as an oral report.

2. Where the report can only be delivered in writing, because additional third party information is required or as a result of sensitivity around the case, this should be undertaken as a short format report in 0 – 5 working days.

3.This approach applies to both Magistrates and Crown Courts. All Courts are required to complete as much work as possible as ‘on the day’ reports. Additionally Courts are required to work as a national organisation and all work should be prioritised, regardless of the address of the offender.

4. Only those offences which require a dangerousness assessment or are high risk of harm, are done with a full Layer 3 OASys and in SDR format. All other adjourned reports are completed as short format reports with a Layer 1 OASys and an RSR/CAS, including a full ROSH analysis where one is triggered.

5. If a Layer 3 OASys assessment already exists, a Layer 3 assessment should be pulled through selecting "PSR other offences committed" as the purpose; updating Section 1 (Offending Information/OGRS), Section 2 (Offence Analysis), RoSH screening and the RoSH full analysis (if required).

6. Where the enablers for a report on the day are not present (i.e. DV call out information), and a report needs to be adjourned, where appropriate the report will be written as a short format report for workload management purposes, with additional time allocated if needed.

7. NPS Court staff must initiate safeguarding checks regarding children and adults where appropriate. It may not be required to adjourn sentence until the outcome of the checks is known as safeguarding work continues ihto the supervision of the order, the determining factor will be the offence type and if the outcome could significantly alter the sentence. The Court should be made aware if information is not yet received and a record made in CAS.

8. If an officer considers that a report merits a full SDR with associated OASys, they should consult their SPO. These should be reserved for high-risk cases.

9. Reports continue to be completed by the appropriate grade of staff (i.e. PO’s for HIGH risk cases, Sex Offences, Serious Violence – the guidelines for this do not change from those currently in place).

10. For this approach to be effective and for providers to receive the necessary information they need to manage their cases we MUST ensure that where triggered in the CAS or where the offender is deemed MEDIUM risk of harm a FULL RISK OF SERIOUS HARM (Risk Sections R1 to R10 in OASys) is completed. Check the OASys override (in the screening) – i.e. the bit that makes defensible decision not to complete full analysis.

The allocation of Reports to Sessional report authors should follow the same principles as outlined in this document and attract the appropriate remuneration.

Longer term position:

➢ The PI for Report Determination is due out later this year and will reinforce this position.
➢ There will be a standard nDelius report template for use in all Courts nationally. This will be one template which can be adapted for use as an oral, short format. The current template in nDelius is sufficient at present for use across NPS London. Standard delivery reports will continue to be completed in OASys.
➢ Community cases allocated to the NPS continue to require an OASys Initial Sentence Plan within 10 days of attendance at an initial appointment.
➢ Resourcing of Courts remains a key priority within NPS London and across the NPS.

Gove's Honeymoon Over

As Harold Wilson once famously said, 'a week's a long time in politics'. Michael Gove went from the darling of penal reformers to pariah in less than four days. Having wowed the throng at the Howard League on Thursday, he was being roundly denounced by them on Monday when this statement was released by the MoJ:-

Prison building revolution announced by Chancellor and Justice Secretary

Chancellor George Osborne and Justice Secretary Michael Gove have today (9 November 2015) unveiled a major new prison reform programme including plans to build 9 new prisons. The radical reforms will ensure Britain’s prison system is fit for purpose in the twenty-first century, and the new prisons will allow the government to close old Victorian prisons in city centres and sell the sites for housing.

This will allow over 3000 new homes to be built, boosting house building in urban areas and helping thousands of working people achieve their dream of owning a home. The Victorian prison site at Reading will be the first to be sold. Around 10,000 prison places will move from outdated sites to the new prisons, significantly improving rehabilitation, and saving around £80 million per year due to the reduced costs of modern facilities.

Chancellor George Osborne said:

"This spending review is about reform as much as it is about making savings. One important step will be to modernise the prison estate. So many of our jails are relics from Victorian times on prime real estate in our inner cities. So we are going to reform the infrastructure of our prison system, building new institutions which are modern, suitable and rehabilitative. And we will close old, outdated prisons in city centres, and sell the sites to build thousands of much-needed new homes.

This will save money, reform an outdated public service and create opportunity by boosting construction jobs and offering more people homes to buy. Five of the new prisons will be open before the end of this parliament. The government will also complete the new prison being built at Wrexham, and expand existing prisons in Stocken and Rye Hill.

Currently half of criminals re-offend within one year of being released, and nearly half of all prisoners go into prison without any qualifications. The Chancellor and Justice Secretary made the announcement ahead of a visit to Brixton prison, a Victorian prison in South London."

Justice Secretary Michael Gove said:

"This investment will mean we can replace ageing and ineffective Victorian prisons with new facilities fit for the modern world. We will be able to design out the dark corners which too often facilitate violence and drug-taking. And we will be able to build a prison estate which allows prisoners to be rehabilitated, so they turn away from crime. It is only through better rehabilitation that we will reduce reoffending, cut crime and make our streets safer."

--oo00oo--

So, despite all the warm words about "helping thousands of working people achieve their dream of owning a home", this statement by the odious George Osborne was as much about a mega-property deal aimed at providing some trendy accommodation for the wealthy in London as it was about any serious attempt at penal reform.

Russell Webster wasn't too keen:-

Is building nine new prisons good news?

WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT ON THE PRISON POPULATION?

Those in the criminal justice field are seeing the announcement in the context of Mr Gove’s recent announcements that as a country we could make less use of prison.

But why do we need to build new prisons if our goal is to reduce the prison population?

In the 15 years between 1993 and 2008, the prison population grew by an average of 4% per year (despite crime falling steadily over the same period.) Surely, we could just reverse this process, send fewer people to prison and close the most out-dated prisons in a methodical, planned way, with the added bonus of garnering extra money for the public purse by selling the land (much of it prime inner city sites) to developers.

Modern prisons are cheaper to run. But that is often if they are super-sized “Titan” prisons like the new one being built at Wrexham. Titan prisons are notoriously difficult to run safely and inevitably mean that the majority of prisoners are held many miles from home, making family ties hard to maintain and resettlement plans difficult to achieve.

The fear of many penal reformers is that we will suffer from a paradoxical “Field of Dreams” scenario:

"If we build it, they will come."

In other words, our history shows that when new prisons are built, sentencers usually ensure that they are too filled with new prisoners while old prisons are not decommissioned at all, resulting in still more people in prison.

--oo00oo--

This from David Raho, Napo London Branch:-
Prison can never be 'fit for purpose' whilst the government does not appear to know what the purpose is. The prisons we have are overcrowded, understaffed, and run down - staff want to be there even less than the prisoners. We simply imprison far too many people needlessly and doing so actually increases the risk to the rest of the public upon their release. An increasing prison population is a sign of a failing justice system that is out of control.

Countries with a more enlightened justice systems are actually reducing their prison populations and putting a great deal of effort into closing their prisons. They invest heavily in rehabilitation and community based options and only use custody as a last resort. This in fact means more money to spend on crime prevention and helping victims too.

Politicians need to grasp the nettle and stop investing in a broken prison system and selling off prison services to revolving door private companies with no motivation to reduce the prison population that has never in fact been tasked to tackle the real causes of offending and learn from those systems that do actually appear to work in concert with a number of other initiatives to help people to lead law abiding lifestyles. That means no more extended fact finding trips by MoJ officials to the US and Canada and perhaps a little more research closer to home in say Sweden or Norway where their approach appears to be far more innovative and humane and incidentally much better value for public money.

--oo00oo--

Here's some highlights from Oliver Wainwright writing in the Guardian on the architecture:- 

Pile 'em high: Britain's £1bn plan to build nine warehouse super-prisons

“The style of architecture of a prison,” states the 1826 Encyclopaedia Londinensis, “offers an effectual method of exciting the imagination to a most desirable point of abhorrence.” Spelling out the principles of good jail design, it goes on to add that “the exterior should, therefore, be formed in the heavy and sombre style, which most forcibly impresses the spectator with gloom and terror”.

You would be forgiven for thinking this was the government’s current guidance on prisons, judging by the £250m “super-prison” currently rising amid a jumble of industrial sheds on the outskirts of Wrexham in north Wales. As the architects’ design statement proudly claims, one of the principal objectives was “to ensure that the design of the proposed prison aligns with the character and appearance of the surrounding industrial estate”. Just as the nearby warehouses have been designed for the stacking and processing of goods, so the super-prison appears to be conceived as a pile-’em-high battery farm for 2,100 inmates. A relentless grid of small square windows will run along the grey walls of the vast accommodation blocks, with cells arranged in long radial corridors around a central hub – in the same way that prisons have been configured since Victorian times.

The historic similarities are poignant, given that Michael Gove, justice secretary and lover of simpler times past, has just announced a £1bn plan to close down inner-city Victorian prisons, sell them off to housing developers and use the money to build nine new super-prisons like the one in Wrexham, to hold a total of 10,000 prisoners. “We will be able to design out the dark corners which too often facilitate violence and drug-taking,” he said, suggesting that architecture might actually have a role to play. This marks an about-turn from his view of school design, a process from which he sought to remove architects entirely when he was education secretary, accusing them of “creaming off cash” with their fancy plans.

But what of Gove’s new fleet of prisons? The Treasury says its “new for old” plan will save £80m a year, suggesting that the new generation of super-prisons will be squeezed to a level of maximum efficiency of which even Jeremy Bentham would be proud. The Victorian reformer’s famous panopticon prison design, never fully realised, proposed to arrange cells in a circle around a central point, allowing a single guard “to survey the whole establishment in the twinkling of an eye”. It would aim to create “the sentiment of an invisible omniscience”, while all the time keeping inmates in lonely isolation, following Bentham’s theory of “reformation through solitude”.

Sadly, his principles seem to be enjoying a resurgence. Wrexham follows hot on the heels of Oakwood prison, another 2,000-capacity behemoth built near Wolverhampton in 2012, also designed around a central point, thereby needing fewer staff to keep an eye on inmates. Offering cut-price incarceration courtesy of private security firm G4S (costing £13,200 an inmate per year, compared to the UK average of more than £31,000), it was plagued by design problems soon after opening. With only a single fence, drugs and phones could be thrown in – indeed, inmates told prison inspectors it was easier to get drugs there than soap.

By prioritising efficiency over rehabilitation, this new generation of bargain-basement holding pens are cutting out crucial spaces. Communal dining rooms are increasingly rare because they require more supervision, so inmates generally eat alone in their cells, giving them fewer opportunities to socialise. Fixtures and fittings are all tamperproof and wipeclean, making the prison environment feel more institutional and less like a normal place. It’s not hard to see how a reduction in staff combined with an increased sense of institutionalisation has led to jails in England and Wales being in their worst state for a decade, with rises in violence, self-harm and staff attacks, according to the chief inspector’s report in July.

--oo00oo--

Thanks to Inside Times and HMI Prisons News, this is what new jails look like, HMP Brinsford:-

Omnishambles on Track

The latest report from HM Probation Inspectorate has just been published and in somewhat under-stated language confirms that the omnishambles is indeed progressing nicely and there's nothing to worry about:- 

Summary and Key Issues 

Assisting sentence and the assignment of cases 

Communication between the National Probation Service and the Community Rehabilitation Companies was improving. There appeared to be better liaison concerning the flow of information relating to pre-sentence work. Several of the Local Delivery Units inspected had established effective systems to check whether cases were known to a Community Rehabilitation Company before sentence. There was, however, little discussion between the National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Companies over appropriate proposals for reports. Further, there were still too many cases without a sufficient Risk of Serious Harm screening, and where necessary a full analysis of the risk of serious harm, in place before allocation. 

A Risk of Serious Recidivism score had been calculated in almost all cases. Based on the information on the case management system, the case was with the right organisation. Further investigation of Risk of Serious Recidivism scores, however, showed that a number were inaccurate, when compared with our inspector’s calculation, and that a few cases were being allocated incorrectly. Some had misinterpreted the guidance and either ignored relevant information or placed it in the wrong section of the tool. This led to some cases being allocated to the Community Rehabilitation Companies when they should have been with the National Probation Service. There were no quality assurance processes in place to improve the completion of the Risk of Serious Recidivism tool. 

The Case Allocation System had been completed in less than two-thirds of cases. Where it was done, it was completed on time and we also saw an improvement in the quality of the information it contained, with fewer sections marked ‘not known’. The timescale for completing the Case Allocation System, however, was often too short for external agencies such as children’s services or police domestic abuse units to return information. 

Due to the demands to see offenders quickly, there was a shift towards group induction, particularly within the Community Rehabilitation Companies. This was unpopular with a number of offender managers who felt that individual inductions resulted in better engagement. We found no evidence, however, to suggest that individual induction was more effective than group induction. 

Early Work in the Community Rehabilitation Companies 

Most cases were assigned to an identified offender manager within one working day of sentence. Fewer than half of the cases we inspected, however, had their first appointments with their offender managers within five working days of sentence. Full information on new cases was often not available at, or immediately following, allocation. In many instances this information followed on after the case had gone to a Community Rehabilitation Company.

The Offender Assessment System likelihood of reoffending assessment was sufficient in just over half of cases. Sentence plans were not always completed in good time and did not always address the factors relating to offending, or wider diversity issues and barriers to engagement. 

Many of the offenders supervised by a Community Rehabilitation Company had committed violent offences, or had been involved in domestic abuse. There were concerns about protecting children in a number of cases. Only two-thirds of Risk of Serious Harm screenings and half of full risk of harm analyses were sufficient. An effective risk management plan was in place in fewer than half of all relevant cases. Failure to assess accurately the risk of harm and then implement a plan to reduce it can lead to a focus on inappropriate work and to an increase in the harm an offender may pose.

Overall, appointments were offered in line with the requirements of the sentence and staff had made efforts to motivate offenders to comply. Non-compliance was addressed quickly by Community Rehabilitation Company staff who issued warnings appropriately and sought to re-engage offenders and promote compliance with the sentence. 

Early Work in the National Probation Service 

Almost all sampled cases were allocated within one working day and seen by their offender managers within two working days. Diversity issues and barriers to engagement were identified in the majority of cases; however, plans to address these issues were only developed in two-thirds of relevant cases. Most cases had a sufficient assessment of the likelihood of reoffending but timeliness was an issue. Sentence plans were sufficient in two-thirds of cases and where completed generally did contain appropriate objectives. 

Most cases had a Risk of Serious Harm screening in place but some staff had taken too long to complete them. Full risk of harm assessments were sufficient in just over half of the cases we inspected. Assessments did not always draw on all available sources of information and the analysis of the risk to children was not good enough in too many cases. Poor quality assessments led almost inevitably to poor quality risk management plans, less than two-thirds of which were sufficient. Where there were concerns over the safety of children, we found that the use of Child Protection procedures by National Probation Service staff needed to improve. Management oversight had not been effective enough to address these shortfalls. 

The frequency and type of contact was good in most cases, and in the majority interventions had been delivered as planned. Where offenders failed to comply we saw a robust response and appropriate use of the enforcement process. More home visits should have been made, however, where offenders posed a risk of serious harm to the public and in Child Protection cases. 

Enforcement 

Overall, the enforcement process was variable, with some Local Delivery Units still experiencing high rejection rates for breach packs. Many had been returned for spelling and grammatical errors or to question proposals. The best examples were found in Local Delivery Units that had established good quality assurance processes and positive relationships between Community Rehabilitation Company staff and National Probation Service prosecution staff, making swift enforcement more likely. 

Swift enforcement is more likely to secure engagement with planned work and future compliance. To breach a case, the Community Rehabilitation Companies must produce a breach pack and pass the case to the National Probation Service for prosecution. There are a number of timescales which have to be met and these should be recorded clearly on nDelius. Recording was not clear in half of the breach cases we inspected and this made it difficult to determine if the required timescales had been met. 

The small number of licence cases in the sample were enforced correctly by the Community Rehabilitation Companies and all the recalls we saw were appropriate. 

Risk Escalation 

The process of escalating cases to the National Probation Service in the event of an increase in an offender’s risk of serious harm was improving. Staff confidence had grown and there was a greater investment in the value of the process in most of the Local Delivery Units we visited. Almost all the cases we saw had a clear and justifiable reason for starting the escalation procedure. 

In some Local Delivery Units the process was described by staff and managers as working well and quite clearly it was; however, that was not the case in all Local Delivery Units with some staff highly critical of their local processes which, in our view, operated much more effectively in some places, than in others.

There was considerable debate among Community Rehabilitation Company and National Probation Service managers concerning cases where an offender had been arrested or charged but then not convicted of a serious offence. In some instances, the National Probation Service had been left holding an escalated case which was not classified as posing a high risk of serious harm. Better communication between Community Rehabilitation Companies and the National Probation Service would help to streamline the process. Further, there remains room for improvement in recording the required information on the case management system.