Alternatives to Prison

The prison capacity crisis together with a new government is at last giving us the opportunity of having a grown up debate about everything, including the urgent need to look at sentencing policy. This from Rob Allen:-  

Intermediate Treatment

Not surprisingly, we’re seeing a plethora of proposals for new Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood about how to solve the prison crisis. If I was in her job, I’d be particularly attracted to the Howard League’s idea of returning responsibility for prisons and probation to the Home Office. But I think that’s unlikely and undesirable. Peter Hennessey rightly described the Home Office as the graveyard of liberal thinking since the days of Lord Sidmouth.

Most of the suggestions being floated by think tanks, charities and experts focus on reducing demand for prison places in the short term through early release. Implicit in many proposals is the notion that when the 20,000 new prison places are up and running in a few years’ time, some sort of equilibrium will be restored between supply and demand.

I’ve argued that a new way of developing policy about who should go to prison and for how long, distanced from party political competition, might reverse the sharp rises in the custodial sentencing rate and length of prison terms we’ve seen in the last 14 years.

In addition we need to diversify the range of options that can be used as alternatives to prison.

Some of these are institutional alternatives. Many people in prison should be in hospital but thresholds for transfer and waiting times are both too high. The Justice Select Committee asked then Prisons minister Ed Argar about the number of available secure hospital beds for prisoners but doesn’t seem to have received a reply. There are simply not enough.

Other prisoners could potentially be transferred to residential treatment facilities which are being expanded as part of the 10 year Drug Strategy.

Other options include hostels and other supervised accommodation. From 2019 to 2023 the Approved Premise Expansion Programme delivered 169 additional beds, including opening 4 new Independent Approved Premises (83 beds) and 51 additional beds in dedicated premises for women. But there’s a case for a much more ambitious increase in half way houses. It could be paid for by paring back the prison building plans to say 15,000.

Back in 2001, the sentencing review carried out by senior Civil Servant John Halliday recommended that the Home Office- they were responsible back then- should

“establish a review of the existing “intermediate estate” for accommodating and managing offenders in the community, with the aim of developing a strategic plan for its future use, staffing, management and development. The review should embrace all types of accommodation, whether owned by the prison or probation services, or the independent and voluntary sectors, and whether used for prisoners on temporary release; prisoners on conditional release; offenders serving community sentences; or ex-offenders receiving support voluntarily”.

I am not sure such a review was ever done – but it’s certainly needed now.

Three years after Halliday’s review, then Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that “satellite tracking technology could provide the basis for a 'prison without bars', potentially cutting prison overcrowding, and expensive accommodation”.

Progress with electronic monitoring has been chequered during the intervening years. But the review should look at whether the role its currently playing is optimal or whether it can serve to manage security risks for people placed in non-secure accommodation- what Halliday called “containment in the community”.

As well as the where of alternatives to prison, there’s a need to look at the how.

Back in 1979, I started work as a volunteer in IT- not computers (there weren’t many back then) -but Intermediate Treatment. With mixed results, I spent most of the next ten years trying to keep young people out of residential care homes, detention centres, Borstals and their institutional successors.

A generous description of the approach might be “eclectic”- camping trips, sports and drama sessions as much as counselling and groupwork. One troubled young man was placed on a ship in the Caribbean for several months, and an IT officer in a neighbouring area allegedly entered a crew into the Henley Regatta.

Quirky some of it might have been, but with relatively small caseloads, we were able to fashion a wide-ranging package of therapeutic and constructive activities for each individual which would help give them the best chance of staying at home, at school or work and out of trouble.

Of course there are resonances with the best of the approach in youth justice and even parts of probation today. There's a growing recognition that relationship based practice is a key to successful supervision and desistance from crime.

Practitioners need to have the opportunity and training to put that into practice so that more offenders can serve their sentences in the community and those that leave prison don’t go back. By enabling that to happen alongside a wider range of treatment and accommodation options, Ms Mahmood may be able not only to find a solution to the immediate crisis but chart a more positive long-term course. She will need to work with her colleagues responsible for health and local government to make it happen. Let's hope she does.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

This from Frances Crook 9th July:-

There has been a lot in the news about the crisis in prisons. They are full, rat infested, ridden with drugs and violence, and the most serious challenge is that they feed the crime problem thus creating more victims and mayhem in the community. This has been a problem for more than a hundred years and cannot be solved with a few quick fixes like extending early release.

There are plenty of papers from academics and voluntary organisations suggesting ways to ease the crowding in prisons that would get the issue off the front pages but I would argue that unless we want to revisit this every few years something more fundamental needs to happen.

A succession of ministers have come and gone and given speeches about making prisons work better and introducing initiatives to improve education and ‘rehabilitation’ and yet nothing has changed. Things can only get worse unless we do something radical.

It is interesting that the new government is planning to fix the front door of the NHS by diverting billions to local services. That is what needs to happen in the justice system. We should divert funding to front end services which means to probation but also to mental health, drug services and to support for housing and crime reduction. If we want to prevent crime, this is the sensible way forward. Just in the health service, the expensive use of residential services like hospitals and prisons, should be used as a last resort and the emphasis should be on the front end and prevention.

We cannot build our way out of the challenge. Building more prisons is a criminal waste of public money that embeds the problems. I have written about how new prisons simply replicate the problems of old prisons in a previous blog.

The new government has to get to grips with sentencing reform. The inflation in sentences has seen people spend many years longer in prison than before and I have never seen any research that showed that sending someone to prison for twenty instead of ten years makes them safer. Too many people are sent to prison in the first place and too many are sent to prison on remand. Big changes are required. It will take legislative bravery which is why it needs to be done in the early years of a government.

Secondly, money needs to go to probation. It deals with the majority of people convicted of a crime, either under sentence or on release from prison. It has been starved of funding and respect. Probation should be untied from the shackles of the civil service, linked to local democracy and the service given the freedom to act with professionalism.

Most importantly we need new leadership. It is depressing to hear some senior politicians repeating the tired and failed rhetoric of ‘we must build more prisons quicker (yes, I mean you Yvette Cooper) which will waste public money and embed more crime and drug addiction. New thinking, brave thinking, is needed that talks to the public as grown ups. With a massive Parliamentary majority and a crisis that is generating front page news, the new government should act with integrity and speed. It can do in the justice system what it is doing in the health system. Learn the lessons of past failures and make things better.

Frances Crook

A Pipe Dream?

Following on from the BBC Panorama AP programme, thanks go to the reader for contributing the following yesterday:-

The Panorama programme was carefully edited to show the worst of AP life. As others have said, they showed none of the rehabilitative work or reflective practice that is routine in a PIPE AP. Fleming House is one of the bigger hostels, so will have a Deputy Manager and a psychologist working there. However like all other APs, only 2 RWs working all night, trying to get curfews recorded, handovers updated, medication given out and the million little jobs that need doing. Yes, one of the residents didn't sign for his 7pm curfew, but he was in the AP, his whereabouts were known. (I'm not condoning him signing for him, but it could have been worse).

The AP manager didn't send off the tablets for testing. This is a new process, previously they would just have been disposed of. They would only really need testing if the resident was being prosecuted for them or if it was needed for proof for a recall. The programme also failed to mention the full span of control an AP manager has - all referrals, allocations, supervision of all staff, building manager, health and safety lead are just the tip of the iceberg. No workload measurement tool in APs. Oh and don't forget on call, where they may have to do a 12 hour night shift after a day's work.

The institutional appearance of the AP, along with the worst Facilities Management contract ever, means most AP buildings are unfit for purpose so staff work extra hard to make a residents stay as good as it can be. 

It's normal to let off steam in the office - no one expects to be recorded. AP staff work really hard. Where else would someone work a 12 hour shift without an official break? Men on 6 man lockdown in custody are brought to the door and left with 2 staff without a thought.

We aren't mental health practitioners but deal with residents that have serious diagnoses linked to risk. Then there's drug and alcohol testing. Vital for our duty of care, especially when giving out medication, but they stopped the instant mouth swab tests in favour of more expensive, more reliable urine tests, where you wait a week for the results. Now we can't even use those regularly due to the cost.

I could go on talking about the issues but I want to say that an AP is also one of the best places to work. You can spend meaningful time with residents and get to know some of them. Some residents have never had anyone who asked about their day or to share advice with. PPs are too busy and overworked to have time to get to know them properly and we can share valuable insights - both good and bad.

Despite everything I am proud to work at an AP and my colleagues feel the same. We may be the forgotten part of the service but that doesn't mean we don't perform our roles to our best ability.

--oo00oo--

Now we know the subject of the Panorama programme is a PIPE - and I have to say I hate this fetish civil servants have with giving everything stupid acronyms - we need to say something about them. This from Prison Reform Trust published by InsideTime is a good summary:-

We get regular calls asking us for information about ‘PIPE’ units, often after the possibility of a referral has come up in discussion with staff. PIPEs, which stands for ‘Psychologically Informed Planned Environments’, are residential environments which are specifically designed to support the progression of people with complex needs and personality related difficulties. They are part of the Offender Personality Disorder Pathway (OPDP) which is a connected set of interventions for people who are likely to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of personality disorder. It is important to note that a diagnosis of personality disorder is not required to be considered eligible for referral to a PIPE.

PIPEs are designed to have a focus on the environment in which they operate; recognising the importance and quality of relationships and interactions. They aim to maximise ordinary situations and to approach these in a psychologically informed way, paying attention to interpersonal difficulties, such as those issues that might be linked to personality disorder. Overall, PIPEs aim to improve the psychological health of participants, improve participants’ quality of relationships and relationship skills, and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

The PIPE model incorporates some core components which are designed to support and develop individuals living and working within them. Staff working in a PIPE have additional training and clinical supervision to give them a better psychological understanding of their work. This understanding helps them to create a safer and more supportive environment, which can facilitate the development of those who live there. PIPEs will offer both ‘structured’ sessions and less formal ‘socially creative’ sessions in order to provide opportunities for relating and addressing issues that may be affecting progression through the pathway. Regular key worker sessions are also a core part of the model, providing an opportunity to coordinate and reflect upon your involvement on the PIPE, and your plans for the future.

In prison, a PIPE should be housed on a discreet unit, where influences from non-PIPE prisoners, and contact with non-PIPE trained/supported staff, is kept to a minimum. Residents may have to engage with the rest of the prison for activity such as employment or workshops but otherwise contact with non-PIPE staff/residents should be kept to a minimum to help contain and sustain the PIPE environment.

There are four different types of PIPE, each type with a different focus. Whilst some individuals do move from one type of PIPE to another, this is not always the case, or the expectation. There is not a ‘best time’ to go onto a PIPE unit as each person’s circumstances and sentence plan will be different.

Preparation: PIPEs focus on increasing motivation and readiness for the next phase of the pathway, whilst exploring any barriers there might be to treatment.

Provision: PIPEs are designed to provide a supportive environment to increase engagement with treatment activity, and support residents to actively apply skills and learning achieved through this treatment.

Progression: PIPEs are designed to support residents in consolidating and generalising their treatment gains, putting new skills into practice, and demonstrating improvements in behaviour.

In the community there are also ‘Approved Premises PIPEs’ which take a whole-premises approach to support effective community reintegration and resettlement.

At the time of writing there are 15 PIPE units in the men’s prison estate, located in category A, B & C establishments, and 3 PIPE units in the women’s estate. There is also a further 10 PIPE Approved Premises in the community, 3 of which are for women.

Individual suitability for a PIPE should be discussed with your Offender Manager, your key worker, or a psychologist in the first instance. They can then liaise with Units on your behalf and assist with the referral process.

--oo00oo--

This from 2014 was probably just aspirational:-

A guide to Psychologically Informed Planned Environments (PIPEs) 

Since 2010 the Department of Health (DH) and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), in consultation with a team of clinicians, have jointly developed a new initiative now widely known as PIPEs, or Psychologically Informed Planned Environments. NOMS and NHS England are now in the process of commissioning PIPE services within the Criminal Justice System to support the progression of offenders with complex needs and personality related difficulties. 

PIPEs are specifically designed, contained environments where staff members have additional training to develop an increased psychological understanding of their work. This understanding enables them to create an enhanced safe and supportive environment, which can facilitate the development of those who live there. They are designed to have a particular focus on the environment in which they operate; actively recognising the importance and quality of relationships and interactions. They aim to maximise ordinary situations and to approach these in a psychologically informed way, paying attention to interpersonal difficulties, for example those issues that might be linked to personality disorder.

Approved Premises PIPE

A whole‐premises approach, focussing on a psycho‐social understanding of residents, and supporting effective community re‐integration and resettlement. PIPE Approved Premises will integrate PIPE model requirements into the core functions of the premises and aim to provide new experiences and pro‐social opportunities for its residents. The population will include a range of offenders at different stages of the pathway, for example a mix of those who have completed interventions and those who have not. The models above could be adapted to be delivered in a community setting, focussing on a specific population if required.

--oo00oo--

Letter to InsideTime 2013:-

I am an IPP prisoner that was released in December 2022 to a PIPE hostel. This meant waiting six months inside even after the Parole Board granted release.

I got to the hostel and for those that don’t know the PIPE system, it is meant to give you more support, often to those with personality disorders. I spent six months there and found it very supportive. The staff were really good. Like everything probation-related, it’s not perfect but it’s a start.

I have no family support or network and the staff, being aware of this, make it clear that when you leave the hostel to move on they are still there to support you. This gave me a bit more confidence when I moved, as I knew should I need help I could ask. However, I have now been banned by my probation officer from contacting the hostel as “when you leave, you’re supposed to move on”.

Now considering I had to wait to get into PIPE, you would think probation would know how it works and want me to make the most of the support available. No, not the case. Now, after 12 years inside and doing all those courses they insist you do about support networks and building relationships, I am sat alone in my own place seeing my probation officer for 20 minutes a week. The rest of the time I’m sitting alone, as I am not allowed to use the support network that consisted of professionals because probation says so.

So can anyone tell me the point of the PIPE, as the support it was meant to give is not allowed by the organisation that created it.

A former prisoner

Lifting the Lid on Hostels

Entirely as expected, last night's BBC Panorama programme on Fleming House Approved Premises in Kent was a tough watch. Although I've never worked in a probation hostel, I've visited many over the years and supervised many clients who have been through them. It goes without saying that such facilities are a vital element in how probation seeks to work with offenders making the transition from custody back into society, but I suspect have always been under-resourced and almost certainly, misunderstood. 

Watching the programme, with the constant reminders of 'protecting the public' ringing in my ears, I found it just served to remind me of Rob Canton's recent paper Probation as Social Work and his oft-repeated mantra that maybe the best way to protect the public is to 'advise, assist and befriend'.

Of course there was plenty of sloppy practice, administrative failure, budget constraint and possibly lack of training on display, but what about any 'work' going on with residents? Some evidence of interest in them; some constructive and supportive interactions or activity? (As an aside, in the circumstances it is unfortunate that the election announcement led to cancellation of Tuesday's Newsnight examination of sex offenders and treatment programmes because this is a vitally important area of work.)  

Clearly all the extra layers of control, monitoring, testing etc etc have changed the nature of hostels as they have become the exclusive preserve of the high and very high risk, but to be honest is it not a fruitless exercise should they appear to be losing any ability of fostering rehabilitative benefit along the way? There doesn't really seem to be much point in setting people up just to be recalled.   

The austere, institutional feel of the place hardly fostered any notion that any efforts at 'rehabilitation' would even be possible and it did rather confirm in my mind that Fleming House was directly managed rather than independent? In my experience there is a marked difference and I know there have been 'tensions' surrounding the contractual arrangements between HMPPS and the voluntary sector. 

It's very much to be hoped that the independent sector is supported and encouraged because in my experience, that is where innovation, positive role modelling, meaningful engagement and less bureaucracy is likely. Just as HMPPS and the civil service are proving to be the kiss of death to community probation, it would sadly seem to be the case with hostels as well.  

--oo00oo--

Postscript    

Panorama - Napo's Position

Many people will have watched last night’s Panorama programme and be left feeling angry, anxious, saddened and undervalued.

The footage shown was only a tiny reflection of what would have been recorded by the undercover reporter during their time at Fleming House, and so necessarily has been subject to significant editing. That said, we can’t avoid what appears in the footage to be some individuals doing and saying things that were difficult to watch, no doubt most of all for them and their immediate colleagues.

But an issue seems to be that the undercover reporter, and the production company involved in making the programme, didn’t seem to at all understand some important issues related to the nature and purpose of Approved Premises and the wider work of Probation. Also, the failings of others – such as the ‘tagging’ company involved and the Police – were attributed to us and examples of normal working practice were misunderstood and misrepresented. If Napo had been approached before the programme had been broadcast we’d have been able to help them make a better-informed programme. Instead, we got the ‘expert opinion’ of someone who, before they retired almost a decade and a half ago, spent the vast majority of their career in the Prison Service, and has no front-line Probation experience.

The pity of it is that there were so many themes that were raised by the programme that we’d completely agree with, and which we’ve been raising for years at every opportunity with Ministers, HMPPS, the media and campaigning groups. Examples of this include; the devastating impact on us and our families and friends from the impact on our mental and physical health of working in Probation; the ongoing harm caused by ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’; the impact of years of public sector cuts and the inadequate funding of Probation compared to other parts of HMPPS and the wider criminal justice system; the true nature of the work that we do and how vital it is in our communities. Unfortunately, because of the confused and misinformed approach of the programme, these could be lost and the opportunity to properly publicise these wasted, made even worse by the fact that it was by luck scheduled for broadcast on the first full day of a general election campaign.

In the coming days we will see what further response HMPPS have to this programme. Even at the earliest stage of our contact with them this week Napo have raised the issue of what appears to be an abject failure in their staff vetting processes to enable this undercover reporter to spend, by their own account, 6 weeks as an HMPPS employee. Similarly, we have questions for HMPPS over the use of covert surveillance, data protection breaches – including the naming of some residents and use of unpixellated images – and the potential for fraud that appear to have occurred in the making of this programme. Napo believe that the BBC, and the production company involved, have more serious questions to answer. Their idiotic and reckless decision to broadcast information that could help some people better avoid detection for the preparation or commission of sexual offences is completely baffling. While Panorama asked ‘Can Probation Keep Us Safe?’ there is no question that in doing this they have endangered members of the public.

As discussed, Napo has been in contact with the employer in anticipation of the programme to seek assurances from senior leaders on support offered to staff going forward as well as a full review to find out how this situation could have happened.

Please do check on your colleagues and if you have concerns speak to Napo either locally or via your National Link Officer and Official. If you or your fellow members have been impacted by this because you work at Fleming House or undertake sessional work there please contact your local Branch. Napo will provide further updates in due course.

Fancy Being a Probation Officer? 3

As a prison crisis necessitates emergency early release of prisoners up to 60 days early, it rapidly turns into a probation crisis, thus making a terrible situation even worse:-

Tragedy and my condolences to the victims of these horrific crimes.... We should contrast the significant time and resources available to the Probation Inspectorate to produce this report with that of the frontline Probation Workers who have to deal with terrifyingly high caseloads with no time and little experience of how to do so.

*****
I note that the HMIP report concerning this tragic SFO references the lack of experienced staff due to them leaving the Probation Service. I am one of them, having retired early after 3 months shy of 41 years as a probation officer (CQSW trained). Having given some months notice of my desire to retire early, I repeatedly raised with senior managers in the area in which I worked, that nothing was being done to retain staff. I left due to the impossibility of being able to work reasonable hours as an OMU PO.

On another point, I am aware that other posters have referenced more experienced probation officers being unwilling to offer support to trainees and less experienced probation officers. As an experienced probation officer, I did my level best to help others and to offer opportunities for learning but I was very aware that my own workload considerably reduced my capacity to assist less experienced staff and this was something that did not sit well with me as I previously supervised students as a practice teacher via their attendance on CQSW/Diploma in Social Work courses.

*****
Interesting comments regarding APs. Where I worked, we were encouraged to spend as much time with the 'Residents' . But things changed. No longer were we to spend time with them, just observe via CCTV. The amount of useful 'Int' gathered over a coffee and smoke was more useful than any structured meeting, just glad I'm out of it all now.

****
APs are shockingly under resourced. The same number of Residential Workers in each AP regardless of whether it accommodates 10 or 40 residents. One manager, who is normally the only qualified officer in the building, but their brief is to manage the building and the staff. One part time admin staff for the whole AP!

APs are now part of a separate directorate so don't routinely get sent the comms that go to PDUs so miss out on what changes are taking place. APs are the forgotten section of a forgotten service. The new referral process is horrific, with many managers now having limited overview of who is sent to their AP. The focus is on filling beds rather than appropriate placements. Gone are the days where you'd leave a few days between one resident leaving, before placing someone else in that room, just in case accommodation isn't sourced in time and they need an extension.

More and more leaving APs homeless, shocking given that most referrals state they need an AP as the alternative is being released homeless or it will increase risk. Indeed, CRU will often allocate with a note to say the AP manager will need to reduce another residents stay in order to fit them in. We won't start on the leadership in the CRU but there is no support for AP staff there. The Early Release Scheme is placing more pressure throughout. APs are getting more and more emergency referrals, with no time to do pre-arrival work - the bedrock to a successful stay. APs are an invaluable intervention but are more and more being treated like B&Bs. But no one cares and no-one listens.

****
Lots of panic about in HMPPS right now. Early release scheme being increased from 18 to 35 days. Announcements also coming around not supervising PSS or those in the final 1/3 of their orders - to try and ease pressures.

****
You’d be lucky to find a genuine J-Cloth these days. It is a bit of a Cinderella service and convenient punch bag for vile Tory blamists. We used to complain about not being recognised or noticed but now we are front page news as if we actually have any control or influence over anyone these days. It is common to blame the unions for not doing enough but the Chief Probation Officer seems missing in action. Kim Thornton wotsit was MIA. Why wasn’t she doing the rounds explaining crushing workloads, the necessity of binging in young inexperienced staff because experienced staff won’t put up with the crap. Let’s ask what the heck she is doing first then ask whether the unions have also asked her to act. Don’t put it all on the unions. She needs to earn her title otherwise she is just another fat cat civil servant.

****
I'm unconvinced that the early release scheme will reduce the prison population. In fact it may have the reverse effect. They will fill any empty spaces with new prisoners, and there will be a significantly greater number on licence that will be subject to recall. I'm guessing that many that are released early will be from the 12mth and under cohort, and in my view, they are the very cohort that are most likely to get recalled.

****
The ECSL has reduced some of my colleagues to tears this week. It was already stressful and only getting 24-48 hours notice of release is a joke. Escalating to try and get gold command to look at it impossible. No duty of care given to individuals being released early with no accommodation and the only support being probation. Experienced staff will continue to leave while this is happening and ministers make decisions on a sector they have no experience or knowledge about. It’s going to end up with more overcrowding due to recalls and then the SFO’s. AP’s are at breaking point and there is so little accommodation that the early released will be street homeless or residing in unapproved addresses. This is not the service I came into and I really don’t know how long I will last with a caseload of over 150% and the added pressures of ECSL.

****
Probation relies on a fully functioning well resourced welfare state and fully functioning local authorities with local services to be effective. Probation cannot compensate for years of neglect and lack of services. Levelling up was a huge con job perpetrated against the north. The Red Wall was feared by the Tories with its erosion the Tories have been able to get a foothold and attack Labour strongholds. This will mean less investment not more.

****
High risk cases are already being released under ECSL. They have from the start. Soon all non-high risk recalls will be released after 14 days. Probation officers expected to arrange housing, drug service, mental health support at short notice and blamed when they can’t. It’s a joke.

****
Very vulnerable young person released homeless on ESCL. We tried to plead with the powers that homelessness would increase his vulnerability in relation to required health medication. The powers that be released him anyway. Tearful and scared he wandered to his licence induction. A reception member took pity and gave him a tent and a sleeping bag. Reception member received a verbal warning after the local council complained to senior management about ‘how that made the local town centre look’. Suffice to say, his sleeping bag and tent were removed and the whole PDU were given strict instructions not to help homeless people in this way.

****
Here we go again. Another recall yesterday as another high risk had successfully completed 8 weeks in an AP. The problem was there’s no move on accommodation that would support the 4 months he had left on HDC. We congratulated him by allowing the HDC to recall him. An awful way to treat a human life. We do try to negotiate with the HDC escalations team as to why we try and avoid early releases for this reason but it falls on deaf ears. I agree we should not keep them longer in custody than absolutely necessary but we desperately need move on accommodation, mental health support and adult social care. Housing stock is barely existent. MH and ASC have been all but decimated. We simply don’t have what we need to support the reintegration of people in society, so we send our successful clients back to prison instead. We all cry at night.

****
If staff are crying at night, they should visit their GP for support ASAP instead of trying to soldier on. Do not destroy your mental health by attempting to function in a system which is broken.

****
Interesting comments about ‘what happens to caseloads when officers are off sick’. One of the other offices in my PDU is short staffed due to a lot of them being off sick with burnout. They’ve decided the SPO over there should manage the cases himself. I think he has about 200 of them now but it looks like he is still managing what’s left of his team as well. They send ISP’s to our office to complete for him. There’s still a lot more cases just dangling in the names of officers who are off long term.

****
There are many young people and young women who have life experiences. When I joined probation I had been in detention centres, in gangs. I failed at school and had been on the streets for a long time. I knew what it was like to have nothing and to fend for myself. I work many dead end jobs, put myself through university and later joined probation.

The difference back then was the variety of life experiences and personalities when I joined. This included younger and older people who did and did not have a clue. Length of service rarely equated to mean good probation officer. Burnout was a thing back then too. Sometimes the longer serving the probation officer the more they were best avoided. The exception were the ones that went above and beyond for everyone. The ones we all learned from.

Probation offices could be just as toxic and discriminating as when I joined, but everywhere I worked we were a team. Over the years the pressure of the lack of staffing and resources has stripped away staff resilience and camaraderie. Trainees are expected to learn from managers who never properly learnt to be probation officers and from ‘elders’ who are too fed up or busy to be probation officers. This won’t change until probation offices cease being run on shoestring budgets with skeleton staff.

Probation must reset and decide what a probation officer should be. Put the relevant degree or social work training back in place, require prior relevant work experience and work out how to bring in the young, old, life experienced and life inexperienced alike. Until then, my advice to those thinking about probation is that it’s a job, but there are better paid and more rewarding careers out there.

****
I trained new officers for ten years or more and it was always a two way exchange of ideas. Then one morning my SPO sent me a message saying that they were no longer going down the mentor route , and I was no longer to do it, by lunchtime I had two new cases…..the osmosis style of learning is now king….i would suggest that the attrition rate has increased accordingly as new officers don’t have a named mentor, least not in my corner of the probation universe……..

****
Senior and line management obsession with performance management and so-called quality assurance has condemned the workforce to a life of unbearable stress and a laptop probation service. Result: exit experienced and newly-qualified staff under demoralised mega-stress. NAPO must build a fight back and show campaigning leadership as opposed to simply turning up to negotiations knowing they are paper tigers.

****

I have never accessed the EAP stuff. The trust between me and the employer is zero, so why would I in any state of vulnerability and distress dial in to their shitty and doubtless cheap and outsourced EAP? Would I feel safe? Be safe? It's there to tick a box. And box ticking does nothing for anyone other than the bean-counter and the manager blissfully thinking they're more powerful than the counter of beans.

Another Graphic Illustration of Failings

With quite astonishing testimony coming in on the state of probation, including cocaine use and 90% of the job being work on the laptop, one cannot escape the conclusion that fundamental restructuring cannot be far off. As the latest SFO review from the new HM Chief Inspector confirms, the present state of affairs is untenable. Here's the press release:-  

Independent serious further offence review of Joshua Jacques

Background:

On 25 April 2022 police forced entry to a property in Bermondsey, London, where the bodies of Denton Burke (aged 68), Dolet Hill (aged 64), Tanysha (Raquel) Ofori-Akuffo (aged 45), and Samantha Drummonds (aged 27) were found. All four victims had suffered stab wounds and lacerations. Joshua Jacques was charged with these murders.

In June 2022, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State asked the Chief Inspector of Probation to undertake an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques, as he was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences. This review was completed in November 2022 and can now be published following the completion of criminal proceedings.

Statement:

Chief Inspector of Probation Martin Jones CBE stated:

“There were serious failings in the supervision of Joshua Jacques. Despite concerns about repeated non-compliance with his licence conditions, enforcement practice was inconsistent and opportunities to recall Jacques to custody were missed.

“Joshua Jacques was incorrectly allocated to a newly qualified probation officer who had only finished their training three months before being assigned the case. Under guidelines by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), Jacques should have been allocated to an experienced, qualified probation officer. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case. The management oversight of the probation practitioners involved in this case was also insufficient. Probation staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight.

“There was a lack of professional curiosity in all areas of probation practice in this case. This meant several events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship, and the unpermitted use of social media, were not responded to or explored sufficiently.

“Joshua Jacques was appropriately assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm to the public prior to his release from custody. However, his risk in other categories, including to staff or potential partners was underestimated. No risk assessment was completed for Jacques following his release which resulted in no risk management plan or sentence plan in the community being completed.

“Probation practitioners were aware of Jacques’ mental health history, including that he had been sectioned in 2018 and that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable. Jacques had also reported that random aggression could be a symptom of declining mental health. In February 2022, Jacques disclosed to probation court staff that he was experiencing a decline in his mental health; however, no action was taken. Inspectors found during this review that probation staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available to them.

“The case records show that Jacques was routinely using cannabis whilst on probation, and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. No such intervention was organised by the Probation Service and our inspection found no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency.

“Sadly, this case is symptomatic of the issues we have observed across the probation service in recent years. A reliance on an inexperienced cohort of probation staff, a lack of support for mental health and substance misuse issues alongside insufficient management oversight are concerns which have been highlighted repeatedly. As a result of this review, eight recommendations were made to HMPPS. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them.”

The following extracts are from the full report and although lengthy, give a graphic illustration of the fundamental flaws in how the probation service as simply not fit for purpose as part of HMPPS and under civil service control.  

1. Foreword 

In April 2022, Joshua Jacques was charged with the murders of a family of four: Denton Burke, Dolet Hill, Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo, and Samantha Drummonds. On 21 December 2023 he was found guilty of murder following trial. 

Joshua Jacques was under probation supervision when he was arrested for these offences, having been released from prison on licence in November 2021. Ordinarily, the Probation Service would conduct a review of the management of the case, in the form of a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review. In this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked HM Inspectorate of Probation to complete an independent review into how the Probation Service managed Joshua Jacques. 

The impact of these shocking crimes cannot be underestimated and will have had a profound impact on their family and the wider community. We offer our sincere and heartfelt condolences and recognise that the family need information about how Joshua Jacques was supervised in the community and answers as to whether there were failings in this practice.

This report presents the findings of our independent review and sets out that the practice in this case fell below the expected standards. 

As a result of recent recruitment drives and of experienced staff leaving the Probation Service, many probation teams now have large numbers of newly qualified officers (NQO) or recently qualified officers. In the Southwark Probation Delivery Unit (PDU), this situation impacted on the level of experience in the teams available to manage high risk and complex cases, something our core inspections have also routinely found. 

We found Joshua Jacques’ case was incorrectly allocated to an NQO, and the lack of good quality management oversight of this member of staff impacted on the quality of decisions made. There was a notable absence of professional curiosity1 across all areas of probation practice from court through to sentence management, and a failure of the probation practitioners overseeing the case and their manager to meet fully their expected responsibilities. As a result, several significant events, such as an arrest for further offences, disclosure of declining mental health, problematic behaviour towards neighbours, a new relationship and use of social media when not permitted to do so, were not responded to sufficiently. 

While appropriate referrals were made to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) and to Approved Premises (AP) by the probation practitioner, these critical elements of increased supervision did not fulfil their potential in supporting the management of risk of serious harm posed by Joshua Jacques. An initial OASys assessment was not completed upon his release, which meant that his management in the community was not supported by a robust risk management plan, nor a sentence plan to inform his supervision on licence. The pace and level of engagement of Joshua Jacques with his licence was seemingly determined by him, rather than the probation practitioners, who viewed his engagement and progress too optimistically.

There were concerns Joshua Jacques was not complying with the conditions of his licence and, though this happened repeatedly, they were each dealt with in isolation. Practitioners did not see the bigger picture and missed opportunities to respond sufficiently to his concerning behaviours, for example through a recall to prison. 

Many of the findings of this review mirror those of our thematic and regional probation inspections. This review makes eight recommendations to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service which we require implementation of as a matter of urgency to ensure learning is implemented quickly and nationally, not just in the PDU where this case was supervised.

Martin Jones CBE 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Summary of Key findings 

JJ’s supervision was characterised by several practice deficits and missed opportunities which impacted on how JJ was managed on licence. Nine key themes identified from the independent review are outlined below. 

Risk of serious harm assessment 

In custody, two OASys assessments were completed which concluded that JJ posed a high risk of serious harm to the public, specifically identifying the public to be drug users and peers operating in drug supply. This was an appropriate assessment, however it failed to identify all factors that were linked to the risk of serious harm such as his mental health, substance misuse and current accommodation. JJ was assessed as posing a low risk of serious harm in all other categories, which was an underestimation of the level of risk he posed. 

An initial OASys assessment was commenced upon release, however, this was never fully completed and remained an incomplete document. This was poor practice and was not in line with organisational expectations. 

The failure to complete an OASys assessment on release resulted in no assessment of risk of serious harm and no risk management plan in the community to inform how the risk posed should be safely managed while on licence. Additionally, there were no sentence plan objectives to support and inform the supervision appointments, which should have been targeted to address those factors most likely to contribute towards further offending. Further reviewing did not take place following MAPPA meetings, nor in response to changes of circumstances and significant events. Completing a review would have enabled the probation practitioner to consider the significance of new information, and review the sentence and risk management plans accordingly, to ensure the necessary arrangements were in place to protect the public. 

The pre-sentence report prepared for court, and the OASys completed following sentence to the suspended sentence order, both replicated the pre-release assessment and did not take the opportunity to consider all available information to support an updated and holistic assessment. 

MAPPA meetings considered the level of risk of serious harm posed by JJ; however, this did not negate the need for an OASys assessment to be completed. This is essential probation practice to ensure that the management of each case is supported by a robust and defensible assessment of risk of serious harm and need. In the absence of a formal assessment using the OASys tool, inspectors would have expected to see other evidence of assessment and planning within case management records. However, there were no such records to satisfy us that a clear understanding of how to manage the risks posed were in place. 

Professional curiosity and optimism bias 

PO1 and PO2 put a strong focus on addressing JJ’s needs, such as accommodation and employment. Though these were important factors and progress was made, the supervision sessions were not underpinned by a sentence plan and there was no evidence of interventions which focused on offender behaviour being delivered. Inspectors found that this strong emphasis on relationship building and addressing JJ’s needs was not balanced against the need to manage risk of serious harm. 

Probation practitioners viewed JJ’s behaviour on licence through an over optimistic lens and did not fully understand the expectations on them to be professionally curious and proactive. As a result, they did not adequately explore issues such as why he had purchased a vehicle, or his problematic behaviour in his accommodation and they failed to inform police of a second breach of the criminal behaviour order (CBO). 

These skills of professional curiosity grow and develop with practitioner confidence and experience, and with the effective support and oversight from peers and managers. There was a lack of experience within the probation practitioner staff group at Southwark PDU and lack of robust management oversight further contributed to this. Where a workforce has limited experience, they need guidance from those with a more established level of knowledge to provide support and oversight to aid their development. 

Enforcement 

Good probation practice seeks to motivate people on probation to comply and engage positively with the requirements of their sentence. While this should include a focus on desistance from further offending, it should also include appropriate enforcement action being taken when required. Instances of non-compliance should be responded to in a proportionate, fair, and transparent manner.

Enforcement practice in this case was inconsistent, with instances of non-compliance considered in isolation rather than seen in the round. Opportunities to escalate and consult with the delivery unit head (HOS1) were not sought. There was a failure to act upon a pre-release assessment that identified that swift enforcement of the CBO and licence were required to manage the risk of serious harm posed by JJ. Enforcement guidance issued in October 2021 was not followed. Our inspectors felt the decision not to recall JJ following his arrest for further offences was defensible. However, in making the decision, senior manager oversight should have been sought by SPO1 and the failure to do so was against expected practice. The enforcement practice in this case did not analyse the behaviour being displayed by JJ, nor did it explore whether additional supportive or restrictive measures short of recall were needed to manage his licence. 

Resourcing and workload 

Southwark PDU had been operating under ‘green’ status under the national prioritising probation framework but had several vacancies, particularly at probation officer and probation service officer grade. Many staff within the PDU were at early stages of their career and there were limited numbers of experienced staff available. The probation practitioners in this case lacked the required experience to respond adequately to the complexity of the case and behaviours being presented. In addition, the pace and volume of work impacted on the quality of work undertaken in this case. 

HMPPS’s Tiering framework and case allocation guidance was not followed, and JJ’s case should have been allocated to a more experienced probation practitioner. The allocated probation practitioner in this case was within their newly qualified probation officer (NQO) period and in allocating the case, the SPO should have been assured that PO1 had the required knowledge, skill, and experience to manage the case effectively. JJ’s tier increased following the initial MAPPA meeting and this should have prompted re-allocation of practitioner in line with the expected practice for NQOs. 

Management oversight 

Management oversight was of an insufficient standard. Staff reported a lack of confidence in decisions made by their line manager, contributing to a reluctance to seek out further management oversight. When sought, decisions made by the probation practitioners would generally be approved without the necessary discussion or scrutiny needed to ensure that the most appropriate course of action was being taken. Opportunities to escalate to HOS1 were also missed. 

Similar to the findings from the Inspectorate’s broader local inspection programme, the workload, and responsibilities of line managers in this Probation Delivery Unit were found to be concerning. SPOs were managing large teams and were expected to provide support and oversight of their staff and manage human resource issues, as well as provide oversight and scrutiny of each probation practitioner’s caseload. SPOs also have additional lead responsibilities, such as MAPPA, which impact on their ability to perform their role to the expected standards. 

Inspectors also found insufficient processes in place to manage staff absence. PO1 was absent from work for a period of three months. While during this time PO2 had maintained contact with JJ on their own initiative, the process for caseload reallocation during an absence was not clear, which resulted in a lack of clear ownership of this case and many of PO1’s other cases during this period. 

Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) 

JJ’s index offence (the last set of criminal actions that brought him into contact with the criminal justice system) meant that he was not automatically eligible for management under multi agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). Therefore, it was good practice for JJ to have been referred to MAPPA as a Level 2, Category 3 case. However, there was insufficient evidence that this MAPPA referral positively impacted upon the management of the case. 

The MAPPA referral for JJ was completed late, only one month prior to release. To allow effective coordination this should have been done six months prior. In recognition of the complexity of the case and imminency of need, it was positive to see that JJ was listed promptly for discussion once he had been referred. However, the initial delay in referral resulted in little time for MAPPA to effectively contribute to the pre-release planning, with PO1 having already set licence conditions with the prison, without a contribution from the MAPPA panel. 

The minutes from each of the four the MAPPA meetings held to discuss JJ were of an insufficient standard, providing limited evidence that partner agencies were active in supporting the management of risk of serious harm he presented. 

There were missed opportunities for meaningful actions to be set in response to new information, and a lack of oversight of outstanding actions. JJ was de-registered from MAPPA oversight without an adequate rationale, whilst two actions which had already been carried forward remained outstanding. 

Approved Premises 

The Approved Premises (AP) placement was an opportunity to positively contribute to the management of JJ’s risk of serious harm. Key work sessions were held by AP staff which were appropriately focused, with structured sessions on the immediate needs of JJ; exploring issues such as registration with a GP, finance, and education, training, and employment (ETE), which supported his resettlement into the community. However, professional curiosity was not applied during AP staff interactions with JJ. There is no evidence that there was sufficient exploration of his behaviour and movements, which would have aided the probation practitioner’s understanding of how JJ was spending his time away from the AP. 

AP staff should play a significant role, both in providing relevant risk information to the probation practitioner and in contributing to effective risk management. It is essential that they understand the risk of serious harm presented, are actively involved in the delivery of the risk management plan and are part of MAPPA meetings. An AP representative was not able to engage in pre-release planning due to the delayed referral, and subsequently did not attend the MAPPA meetings held, which impacted on pre-release planning, information exchange and the effective risk management of the case.

Mental health 

JJ had been sectioned previously in 2018 and had informed probation practitioners that feelings of anxiety and paranoia were normal for him. Prior to release, JJ’s mental health was described to be stable, and probation practitioners stated that there were no obvious signs of a mental health decline upon release into the community. 

However, he was described by PO1 as presenting as ‘low’ on occasion, which was attributed to boredom and need for structure in the community. Days prior to the SFO, JJ was described as talkative and going off on irrelevant tangents in his conversations with probation staff. Furthermore, JJ informed PSR1 that when committing the further offences on licence, he had been experiencing poor mental health. This was not explored further and there was a lack of significance given to this statement, resulting in no analysis or action. 

Probation practitioners were aware of JJ’s mental health history but lacked any detailed information. They were also aware that he had behaved violently during a period when his mental health was not stable, and JJ himself had reported that random aggression could be a sign of his mental health declining. However, this was not identified as a factor linked to risk of serious harm within OASys assessments. Additionally, the correlation between his continued use of illegal substances and his mental health was not sufficiently explored or responded to. Prior to JJ’s release from custody, information on JJ’s mental health was sent by the prison mental health in-reach team to his registered GP, however they were not aware that the GP had retired. Upon registration with a new GP, this prior information on JJ’s mental ill health was not passed to them. 

There was a reliance on JJ recognising and self-reporting a decline in his mental health and on the one occasion he disclosed such concerns no action was taken. Probation practitioners stated that there was a gap in services available to support those with mental health, particularly if there were also substance misuse concerns. As emphasised by the report published in 2021, A joint thematic inspection of the criminal justice journey for individuals with mental health needs and disorders, mental health can present significant challenges for probation practitioners, and is often characterised by insufficient information exchange and the need for better training and support. Inspectors found during this review that staff felt ill equipped to understand and respond to mental health concerns, with limited training and support being available. 

Substance misuse 

JJ had used cannabis since he was a child and was described to be lacking insight into the harmful effects of his substance misuse. Probation records and a psychiatrist’s assessment indicate a link between JJ’s substance misuse use and mental health, and that JJ’s sectioning in 2018 had been preceded by the consumption of medication, alcohol, and cannabis. Additionally, much of JJ’s offending was linked to substance misuse. 

Probation case records show that JJ was routinely using cannabis while on licence. He had completed substance misuse intervention programmes in custody and his licence contained a condition to engage in a drug abuse intervention on release from prison. However, such an intervention was not organised by probation practitioners, and we could find no evidence of a referral to a drugs agency. 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners did not explore the underlying reasons for JJ’s substance misuse, and minimised and tolerated regular use while he was on licence. This was underpinned by a failure to adequately analyse the impact of substance misuse to the risk of serious harm he posed.

Being An AP Manager

In trying to continue the recent theme and finding myself trawling through back numbers, I came across this contribution from last year:- 

I’m an Approved Premises Manager and I ensure that all of my team follow the advise, assist and befriend motto. Of course fundamentally we are a risk management facility but if you are responsive to the needs of the resident the risk management element often supports itself. For example- When a resident lapses, rather than immediately withdraw a bed, I meet with the resident and we collaboratively put a plan of action in place. My team then work with resident to implement the plan, adding extra support in place like going with them to drug/alcohol appointments, CA/AA meetings in the community and putting on additional 121 relapse prevention sessions in the AP.

It still blows my mind however that there are a pool of POs who as soon as they find out a resident is struggling want to recall them straight away without even giving them a chance to get back on track.

Now as I said earlier, of course if situations like this mean that risk is entirely unmanageable then recall needs to happen, but I find in 9/10 of situations it really doesn’t. I’ve noticed we get a far better response from residents if they can see we are trying to help them succeed. It saddens me that for some this approach seems to be diminishing.

A Beacon of Independence

In the tightly-controlled MoJ/HMPPS civil service bureaucratic world there is a beacon of light that continues to shine brightly and that is the remaining independent Approved Premises sector. They had a bit of a struggle to remain independent and viable during the dark days of TR and subsequent turmoil and I suspect further choppy waters lie ahead with talk of 'competitive tendering'. Happily, the sector has been fortunate in recruiting Andrew Bridges, former CPO and HMI, to offer support and guidance. Here he is writing in the latest edition of Probation Quarterly:-   

Approved Premises: the mid-2022 'State of Play'

In 2001, in England & Wales, Probation Hostels were redesignated Approved Premises (APs), and have undergone, and are still undergoing, major changes. These small institutions, accommodating usually 20-30 residents in the community, were mainly used to house individuals either serving a community sentence or on pre-trial bail. For some twenty years now, their residents have instead been almost exclusively individuals on release from prison – often following a long and/ or indeterminate sentence.

In mid-2022, about 100 APs are directly managed by HMPPS. An additional 14 APs are commissioned by HMPPS but managed by separate independent organisations, some of which are small historic charities whilst others are specialist accommodation providers.

HMPPS now requires all APs to accommodate only individuals that are “high-risk” and/or with complex needs. Both sectors of APs are therefore now better staffed and equipped compared with a few years ago, and cameras and monitoring devices are very evident. 

HMPPS has recently formally adopted a wider Accommodation Strategy nationwide, within which APs are the “Tier 1” provision, for the highest risk cases. It is seeking to expand this provision, while at the same time develop Tiers 2 and 3, for accommodating other individuals that are being released from prison.

What are the main current issues for the APs, in mid-2022? 

• COVID19 pandemic: All APs are now recovering from the hugely challenging effects of the pandemic. APs kept going when almost all of the rest of the probation ‘system’ was either shut down or ‘homebased’. 

• Expansion: HMPPS’s projections forecast a rise in demand for AP places, and the main route to increasing the number of beds by ‘200 in two years’ is to commission more independent APs, especially in London and the SE where demand should be highest. 

• Occupancy: At the time of writing, APs – especially the female ones – are not filling up with residents in the way that projections suggested that they should. The issues around this are complex, and might prove temporary. 

• A regrading within HMPPS’s own APs: A recent big step was the regrading of a whole sector of AP staff from Band 2 to Band 3 status and pay, to provide some recognition of the nature of this work. 

• New contracts for the independent APs: The contractual relationship with HMPPS is about to go through another major change, laying the ground for competitive tendering. 

• Referrals, especially in the female estate: Given that APs are NOT prisons, there are questions around which residents can or cannot be managed in an AP. Some of the most difficult cases to resolve are female cases, where much of the problem can be that the self-destructive behaviour of some female residents is so relentless, and so destructive to other residents as well as to herself, that she ends up having to be recalled, which means the cycle has to start all over again. Although the independent sector is only just over 12% of the total AP provision, independent APs have over 50% of the provision in the female estate. This is, thus, a very live issue for IAPs who face wider costs and challenges such as not having Crown Immunity, and so have to buy property and liability insurance in the commercial market. 

• Terrorist cases: Individuals imprisoned for terrorism offences are often required to live at an AP on first release, and while most residents are required to move on after just 12 weeks, new provisions mean that terrorism cases will be required to stay for a full year before moving on.

In both sectors of the AP world, life is currently not dull!

Andrew Bridges 

Strategic Director National Approved Premises Association (NAPA)

Happy New Year 2022

End of year message from Amy Rees

Reflecting back on 2021, I am sure many of you would agree it has felt somewhat like a rollercoaster of a year hurtling by at pace with numerous twists and turns. But though there have been challenges and difficult times, there have also been many positives during 2021 and throughout it all, you have continued to be the most professional dedicated and conscientious group of staff I could wish for and I am very grateful and proud of you all.

COVID has of course unfortunately been a backdrop throughout the year and we have had to continue to respond to this professionally and personally. I know some of you will have been directly impacted by the virus and tragically lost loved ones this year. We have also sadly lost probation and prison colleagues as well as people on probation and in prisons. My thoughts continue to be with all of you who have been affected. COVID does regrettably continue to dominate the headlines as the year draws to an end and I know for some of you, this will present ongoing worry regarding your own well-being or that of others so I encourage you to please reach out and speak to your line manager or a colleague if you do have any concerns about the way you feel or they may feel. You can also find out more about sources of support here.

Though we have faced ebbs and flows with the pandemic throughout 2021, you have continued to be responsive as we have made changes, adapting how you work and supporting each other and people on probation. This has enabled us to make significant progress with our recovery work and ensure we continued to deliver and increase where possible our important probation services to protect communities and vulnerable people and I thank you for all your contributions to achieving this.

Given the ongoing challenges presented by the pandemic during 2021, it was an even bigger achievement and testament to all of you and your hard work which enabled us to unify the probation system on time in June and create our new Probation Service. I was absolutely delighted to welcome you all to the new organisation at our MS Teams live event on June 28 along with our then Probation Minister Alex Chalk and our Second Permanent Secretary and Chief Executive Jo Farrar to reflect on all the work that had taken place to make this happen across the regions and the Reform programme. I was also really pleased that the Reform programme was recently shortlisted from hundreds of nominations as one of the three finalists for Civil Service Programme of the year – again a fantastic reflection of the scale of the achievement.

Though in some ways, unification felt like the end of the journey, it was of course just the beginning and we still have much to do to implement our Target Operating Model, recruit more staff and create the world class probation system we want which delivers the very best outcomes for victims and communities. But we are starting from a strong position with all of you I know we will achieve this.

I really enjoyed having the opportunity to join the celebrations of your work and the rich history of the Probation Service during our inaugural Probation Day celebrations in August. I hope you were able to take part in some way and reflect on just how much of a role probation has played in the lives of so many people over the years. I was also delighted that so many senior people including our then Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland, our Permanent Secretary Antonia Romeo and our Chief Inspector Justin Russell as well as a whole host of external partners, stakeholders and leading academics were so willing to join in events during the week and celebrate your achievements – this is testament to the high regard in which you are held by so many because of the challenging but profound work you do.

We also welcomed a series of government funding announcements for our future Probation work during 2021. These included significant investments in Reducing Reoffending to improve access to accommodation, employment support and substance misuse treatment as well as increase Approved Premises bed spaces and enhance Approved Premises provision; £93m to increase and improve the delivery of Unpaid Work and £75m a year by 2024-25 to expand the use of GPS-enabled and alcohol abstinence-monitoring electronic tagging. On top of these, we also now have a permanent increase in our core funding of £155m per year to improve public protection and support rehabilitation. This combined investment will make a significant difference to how we work in future and the services we are able to offer which will help us build our new Probation Service, strengthen and enhance our work across the community and in custody and ultimately, make a big difference to people’s lives which I know is one of the biggest reasons you all joined the organisation.

So as 2021 draws to a close, I encourage you all to take a moment to reflect on our achievements and be as proud of yourselves as I am of you. But I also know there is much more still to do and I am clear eyed about that, reducing workloads, tackling racism and securing a multi-year pay deal being top of my agenda. But my optimism for 2022 is genuine, and I believe well placed as we now have a really solid platform on which to build. Whatever your role and wherever you work within the Probation Service or in HQ, you will have made a difference to people’s lives and each and every one you have played an invaluable role in creating our new organisation. I know it continues to be challenging at times and we still are in the midst of the pandemic, but we will get through this period together. We have lots to look forward to in 2022 and with all of you together now as one big team, our new unified Probation Service can continue to grow from strength to strength and make a difference for the better to the lives of many more people.

Thank you all and may I take this opportunity to wish you a very Happy 2022. Stay safe over the bank holiday weekend and take care.

Amy
Director General Probation, Wales and Youth

--oo00oo--

I'd like to wish all my readers, contributors and supporters a Happy New Year and hope it turns out to be much better than the one we've just come through. Take care everyone!

Jim Brown  

A Reminder

TR was a dangerous act of ideological vandalism for which we continue to pay a price and the CRCs will shortly be no more. Some were better than others, some were innovative, enlightened and introduced better policies and IT. Arguably they were far more open and engaging than a command and control civil service-run HMPPS will ever be. 

So, following another root around the internet and as a reminder, here we have the following on the Prospects academic website from only last October 2020:-  

Life as a probation officer

Based in Wakefield, Liz Sang is a case manager. Discover how her extensive work experience helped her to secure a job and find out what being a probation officer involves

How did you get your job?

I obtained a BSc (Hons) in Forensic Psychology from Leeds Trinity University. My course offered placement modules - I completed my placement at Langley House Trust in a hostel for offenders. This gave me a good insight into the work of probation and supporting services.

I stayed at Langley as a relief keyworker following my placement, and secured a role in the female housing project after graduation. I continued to build experience - as a housing officer for the Together Women Project, as a personality disorder mentor in Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Newhall, and within the Liaison and Diversion Service, based in Leeds's police custody.

The application process for my current role as a case manager at West Yorkshire Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) was fairly straightforward - all that was required was my CV.

My interview was a mix of career background and competency questions and a ten-minute presentation of a time that I have overcome a problem. Having experience with service users across various settings allowed me to use real-world examples and highlight skills that would be part of my role.

What's a typical day like?

The core aspect of my role is risk management, and ensuring court orders are complied with. Rather than just focusing on the offence, we consider the service user's whole life.

At the CRC we use a person-centred framework that details a service user's journey through their order. If a service user has been convicted of a drink driving offence, for example, it's important to consider if they have an alcohol problem or if there were any triggers to the offence. This approach often reveals that a service user has a few issues that require intervention to allow them to complete their court order and prevent re-offending.

Following a sentencing decision at court, the service user will work with their case manager to complete an induction to their order, a holistic assessment of risk and their personal circumstances, a risk assessment and management plans, linking these to their sentence plan. The sentence plan identifies interventions required to reduce risk to the public and risk of re-offending.

The service user meets with their case manager throughout their order to continually assess if the risk is increasing, decreasing or remaining the same, and if new management plans or interventions are needed.

As service users may have complex needs or a chaotic nature, some fail to comply with the requirements of their court order or prison licence. In this instance, the case manager is required to enforce the order through warning letters, recall to custody or breaching the order and returning it to court.

What skills are essential to your job?

Being a case manager can sometimes be a juggling act of meeting service users, managing phone calls, completing risk assessments and supporting service users who attend in crisis. Organisational skills and time management are key aspects of being able to meet the many different deadlines, without feeling overwhelmed.

It can get stressful and hectic, so being resilient to adversity and being able to stay positive are essential skills for making the job enjoyable.

What do you enjoy about your job?

I enjoy making a valuable contribution to local communities, by supporting individuals with chaotic lifestyles and complex needs. By carrying out this role, we offer protection to the public in a sustainable and meaningful way. When we stop people from re-offending, we're promoting public safety and ensuring fewer victims are created.

As probation is a court requirement, it can provide much-needed support to individuals that may not be able or willing to access mainstream services. By working with service users to build their own motivation, they're more likely to access support from appropriate agencies and address support needs that may be a factor in their offending.

I enjoy helping individuals make positive choices in their life and ensuring that they complete their order.

What are the challenges?

Like any role, there are many challenges to meet performance targets and this can be tricky at times, such as when clients attend unexpectedly if they're in a crisis.

Having a positive work/life balance is a key aspect to being an officer, to ensure work doesn't take over. Using flexible working hours and blocking out days to work from home to complete paperwork is really helpful.

How has your role developed?

My role is constantly evolving and changing to incorporate different policies and procedures. We're currently undergoing a team restructure to support caseload management. In the longer term there are opportunities for training, either in a specific subject of work or by completing the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP).

The CRC has other opportunities to progress to management level, or work with the performance team on quality assurance.

Any advice for aspiring probation officers?

It isn't until you're in the role that you understand the workload. For me, there are some important aspects to consider:

• Have some experience working with service users who have complex needs. This can be either through securing work experience or by completing a student placement.
• Be emotionally resilient. There's a lot of pressure to manage different targets, so being able to deal with pressure is a big plus point.
• If you can, volunteer with your local probation office. This way you can speak to case managers and officers about things that are specific to their roles.

Probation During Covid

Probation doesn't feature that often on tv, but here's a piece from BBC Wales on the constraints faced by specialist officers supervising sex offenders in Cardiff:-  

Covid-19: 'My pandemic work with dangerous prison leavers'

Working from home during a pandemic has brought extra challenges for probation officers who work with serious offenders after their release from prison. Many have had to handle unpleasant subject matter in their own homes, as they deal remotely with violent or sexual offenders.

I spent the day with a member of the probation team that works with the 50 most dangerous male offenders in Cardiff, to see how they are managing. Salli Dixon is part of the special team of probation officers usually based at a police station. While some face-to-face appointments have continued, whether in the office or the offender's doorstep, others have to be done over the phone or by video call. The pandemic also means more of the work is done remotely from home, including work with sex offenders.

"It makes it a little more hard to switch off mentally, and you're having really difficult conversations in your home environment, which feels intrusive," she says. "But it hasn't made the service any less effective. We can't have a less effective service - we protect the public, so we've just had to adapt."

Her first call of the day is with a registered child sex offender, who is living in a halfway house after recently being released from prison. He's tested positive for Covid-19 and has been moved into isolation quarters, meaning their appointment must now be over the phone. He tells her he's anxious about plans to find him his own flat where he would be living alone full-time. The length of time prison leavers spend in approved premises like a halfway house has been reduced during the pandemic.

"It's a little early if I'm honest - far, far too early," he says. "When my mind is in a corner and up against a wall - it just goes 'right where is the way out? The way out is to go back to prison'."

His anxieties are kicking in, meaning his risks increase, Salli explains. "He has got 16 or 17 instances of breaching his restrictions, usually by going too close to an area where there are children - like a nursery or school. He says he does that because he wants to self-sabotage and go back into prison," she says. "So when he feels that he is being moved into his own accommodation, where he'll be by himself, he gets anxious and he thinks it's easier to just do something that would warrant him going back inside. "The risk to the public would be that he would commit a child contact sex offence. He hasn't done that yet, but we can't rule out that he wouldn't."

How does she feel discussing the nature of his offending? "We're not completely desensitised as probation officers, because we still hear things that shock us," she says. "No matter how long you've done a job it is quite difficult sometimes and quite unusual to hear somebody talk candidly about their sexual views towards children."

The small team deals with complex cases - like repeat domestic violence or sex offenders who also have additional issues, such as a personality disorder, mental health problems or drug and alcohol misuse. Known as Wisdom (Wales Integrated Serious and Dangerous Offender Management), they have a reduced case load to reflect the risks posed, as well as more resources than typical probation officers.

Her second case of the day is able to come to the office. He committed a sex offence against a vulnerable adult and was released earlier this year after decades in prison. Much has changed since he was a young man on the outside, and he says the pace of life compared with prison has felt overwhelming at times. Weeks after his release, lockdown was announced and he too wonders whether it would be better to be back in prison.

"We've done a lot of work around what's going well and the reasons he wants to stay out," says Salli. "If you reinforce that enough, they will make changes and they will stay out. He's done phenomenally well."

She still carries out some home visits, but they're now on the doorstep, which naturally makes the job more challenging. "We're risk assessors, it's what we're trained to do. So even though we might not be able to physically go inside, we'll do everything we can to make sure that everyone is safe."

The use of video calls also means more checks can be done in a day, but if Salli is working from home she has to make sure none of her personal items are on view. "I would try and have video calls in the office because not only is it safer but I'm in the right frame of mind to be talking to somebody [in that] environment."

Covid-19 has also brought greater practical challenges for the men she works with. "It's made it more difficult for people to access basic things like housing, money and universal credit, signing up at the doctors, getting a prescription. We've had to be more hands on in terms of helping people get set up."

The rewards keep her going, she said, and she is proud of the good the team is doing for the wider community. "We change people's lives," she says. "I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it. It's got its ups and downs and you know you can't help change everyone. You have to manage your expectations about what you can help people achieve."

--oo00oo--

As an aside, I notice there are concerns in some quarters regarding the possible consequences of remote working. This seen on Facebook:-

Is the balance between the necessities of emergency delivery and the consideration, protection, and maintenance of professional discretion being achieved?

The anecdotal experience of many of those working remotely in probation during COVID-19 has, in a number of cases, indicated a disproportionate increase in scrutiny and micro management of work relative to the measures that are required. This has been described as oppressive. 

As the period of crisis continues questions are now starting to be asked regarding whether staff who could, for instance, relatively easily work from home or those who are vulnerable are being ‘encouraged’ back into workplaces some of whom may not be safe. It may also be the case that lower paid workers in probation are being expected to take more risks regarding potential exposure to COVID-19 than those in senior management or who are providing corporate services on the basis that their work is more amenable to remote working. It has been suggested by some practitioners that increased scrutiny or viral risk should attract increased financial compensation, however, the immediate concern is that this might penalise vulnerable persons who need to be protected or actually encourage unnecessary risk taking or even reckless behaviour. Is enough actually being done to facilitate remote working for all who wish to or could do so? Is enough being done to ensure safe working for those who wish or need to work non-remotely? Is probation putting service users at increased risk compared to the general population?

Whilst greater integration of management information systems to provide better quality information to inform decision making around more efficient use of available resources is to be broadly welcomed, particularly in relation to improved workload management and the management of physical, intellectual, and emotional labour, arguably this intensification has to be balanced with a greater degree of trust and increased acknowledgement of and respect for professional discretion and autonomy - that appears to have been sacrificed in favour of command and control. Probation staff are not simply cogs in the criminal justice machine and there is a strong case for a conscious organisational shift towards supporting those at the frontline rather than subjecting them to a constant stream of directives accompanied by intensified surveillance and control. 

There is a strong argument for those representing staff, such as trade unions, to question those making decisions regarding the provision of services in difficult times and ensure that the current crisis is not used as a smokescreen for more intense workplace control and less individual professional discretion.

https://www.lrdpublications.org.uk/publications.php...