Let's Have a RAR Day

With the MoJ publishing revised guidance, now seems as good a time as any to consider what those mysterious 'RAR days' are all about:-  

1. What is the rehabilitation activity requirement?

This guidance is to explain what the rehabilitation activity requirement (known as ‘RAR’) is and how it should be used. This guidance has been produced by the Ministry of Justice probation policy team.

The RAR is one of the requirements that can be included within a community order or suspended sentence order. The main purpose is to secure someone’s rehabilitation, restoring service users to a purposeful life in which they do not reoffend.

The RAR was introduced in 2014 under the Offender Rehabilitation Act to allow providers of probation services greater flexibility to decide on the best ways to rehabilitate individuals. Community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) were encouraged to access a diverse range of rehabilitation providers from the private, voluntary and social sectors.

The RAR replaces what would previously have been undertaken as part of both the supervision and specified activity requirements. What would have previously been known as ‘supervision’ is now split between RAR interventions and offender management activity by the responsible officer (RO). The RO oversees progress of the order and develops a close, trusting relationship with the individual to support them in successfully completing the requirements they’re subject to.

The RO plans with the service user how to use the ‘RAR days’ allocated by the court and which activities to take part in to help their rehabilitation, tailored to their specific needs.

2. RAR in sentencing

The court can decide to include a RAR as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order. They do not have to include a RAR. A RAR should be proposed when the person has clear rehabilitative needs, when appropriate activities are available and where these needs cannot be met by an accredited programme or a treatment requirement.

To assist sentencers, National Probation Service (NPS) court officers should make clear proposals that specifically identify the rehabilitative needs to be addressed and the number of days needed to do so.

Where needs can be met by an accredited programme or treatment requirement, this is the preferred intervention. This is because accredited programmes are evidence based and should achieve improved outcomes if provided to the right people in the right way. A RAR should only be allocated alongside an accredited programme if it can address additional rehabilitative activities that are not addressed by the programme. The RO can offer additional appointments to secure compliance and help maintain motivation.

Treatment requirements are delivered in partnership with locally commissioned substance misuse or mental health treatment services. These partnerships bring together the resources and skills to help those with mental health and substance misuse difficulties. Consent is required for all treatment requirements.

Drug rehabilitation requirements (DRRs) can be given when the court is satisfied that the service user is dependent on or misuses drugs, and that treatment is likely to help and is available.

Alcohol treatment requirements (ATRs) can be given when the court is satisfied that a service user is dependent on alcohol and that treatment is likely to help and is available. The service user’s dependency on alcohol does not have to have caused or contributed to the offence for which they’ve been convicted.

Mental health treatment requirements (MHTRs) can be given where the court is satisfied that an offender has a mental health condition that’s treatable either in a community setting or as an outpatient in a non-secure setting. MHTRs can be used for any mental health issue, including personality disorders, and the treatment offered can cover a wide range of interventions from therapy for depression and anxiety through to secondary and psychiatric care.

3. Assessing rehabilitative needs

A RAR could be used to address someone’s needs in the following areas:

• accommodation
• education, training and employment
• relationships
• lifestyle and associates
• non-dependent alcohol misuse (ATRs are intended for those who are alcohol dependent and DRRs for those who misuse illegal drugs)
• emotional management (MHTRs are intended for all diagnosed mental health conditions, apart from those that require a hospital or guardianship order)
• attitudes, thinking and behaviour
• finance, benefits and debt

These are the needs that evidence shows either predict reoffending if they are not met, or if they are addressed will contribute to the stability people need to be able to deal with other significant issues.

In general, the more of these needs the person has, the greater their risk of reoffending. The NPS advises the court in a pre-sentence report on an appropriate maximum number of RAR activity days that might be needed and why. The court cannot set what specific rehabilitation activities should be done.

The court specifies the maximum number of RAR days that someone can be instructed to participate in activities. The number of RAR days allocated should take into account the complexity and severity of someone’s needs and their risk of reoffending. The RAR is not designed to be used as a punishment.

There’s no maximum number of RAR days but the ‘offender group reconviction scale’ (OGRS) score, based on age, gender and criminal history, should be the main guide to the number of days proposed. This is because there’s a clear link between the OGRS score and the number of rehabilitative needs. Longer RARs should be reserved for those with a higher risk of reoffending as they will have the most needs to address.

OGRS score  Average number of needs  RAR intensity  Guideline number of RAR days

0 to 24%        2.4                                                                          n/a
25 to 49%      3.2                                      Low intensity          RAR 1 to 15 days
50 to 74%      4.4                                      Medium intensity    RAR 15 to 25 days
75 to 90%      4.4                                      High intensity         RAR 25 to 60 days
Over 90%      6.2                                      High intensity         RAR 25 to 60 days

People with an OGRS score of less than 25% present a low likelihood of reoffending and are unlikely to benefit from rehabilitative interventions. It should only be in exceptional circumstances that they’re identified as needing a RAR. There would need to be clear indication of dynamic risk factors linked to an increased risk of reoffending.

In relation to identifying the rehabilitative needs of sex offenders, OGRS is not a good predictor of sexual reoffending. The factors most strongly predictive of sexual offending include: unusual sexual interests, attitudes that support sexual offending, poor emotional relationships with adults and a lack of self-management. The NPS court officer needs to assess if any of these factors exist and should be addressed by RAR interventions. If they’re eligible for an accredited programme, that should be the intervention of choice. It may be necessary to propose more RAR days if other stabilisation needs are identified.

The pre-sentence report should provide enough information about someone’s needs for the court to understand what their RAR is likely to focus on and why this should contribute to their rehabilitation.

People under probation supervision frequently have a wide range of needs. The important task is to identify the needs that, for that person, need addressing to reduce their risk of reoffending.

4. RAR in sentence planning

After sentencing, the assigned RO completes an initial assessment and, with the service user, decides on the interventions that will be done within the RAR, how they’ll be delivered, how often the person attends and what outcomes they’re aiming to achieve. This forms part of the ‘sentence plan’. It’s important to focus on the needs that are predictive of reoffending.

A RAR ‘day’ does not mean continuous activity throughout a whole day. All activities need to be enforceable. The activities that count as 1 day could include:

• individual face-to-face planned and structured sessions designed to address identified needs
• a planned activity with a third-party provider
• 2 or more separate planned activities or sessions in the same day

If someone’s circumstances change in the course of the order, the RO can amend the number and type of activities to ensure they continue to meet the person’s needs. However, the number of RAR days cannot exceed that proposed by the court.

The sentence given by the court states the maximum number of RAR days that someone can be instructed to attend. If the RO believes that the agreed outcomes have been achieved through a lower number of RAR days than specified by the court, or through an alternative method, this needs to be recorded on Delius (the probation case management system) with the reasons explained.

5. What counts as a RAR activity

A RAR activity must be a pre-planned, structured intervention to address someone’s identified need to support their rehabilitation. The RO and the service user should agree the desired outcomes ahead of the activities, so that progress can be tracked.

Probation providers will have different interventions they can offer as part of a RAR to address the needs that are strongly predictive of reoffending. These are likely to include activities in the areas of:

• accommodation
• education, training and employment
• relationships
• lifestyle and associates
• non-dependent alcohol misuse (ATRs are intended for those who are alcohol dependent and DRRs for those who misuse illegal drugs)
• emotional management (MHTRs are intended for all diagnosed mental health conditions)
• attitudes, thinking and behaviour
• finance, benefits and debt
• specific interventions for women

This is not a full list. Other activities could be included as a RAR as long as it’s planned, structured, clearly meets rehabilitative needs and there’s a rationale as to why it should work.

The activity could be as part of a group or could be individual ‘face-to-face’. An activity is usually delivered by a third party on behalf of the RO, but could be by the RO themselves if there’s no existing intervention available.

The RO must also undertake additional offender management activities, which include motivation, promoting and sustaining hope, supporting compliance, enforcement, public protection and overseeing the overall direction and sequencing of activities in the order. These appointments do not count as RAR days and the RO can offer as many of these as they feel are necessary during the course of the order. There will also be other unstructured discussions between the RO and the service user to support them in addressing their identified needs. These discussions are crucial to the building of a positive relationship with the service user, but do not count as RAR days.

6. Selecting RAR activities

The RO needs to understand the person’s needs that lie behind the offence and select an existing intervention to addresses these. If no suitable activity exists then they must record this on Delius (the probation case management system) with the reasons explained.

Examples of activities could include:

• programmes designed to address specific issues such as emotional management
• enforceable appointments with a specialist organisation to help achieve outcomes relating to housing or financial needs
• working with a mentor, for example to attend college, go to the library or help prepare a CV
• structured sessions with a RO, third sector provider or in-house specialist to help improve an individual’s ability to solve problems, make good decisions or access and maintain engagement with other services

7. Delivering RAR activities

RAR activities can be delivered by a sub-contracted provider (where there are arrangements to monitor attendance, as these are legally enforceable), an in-house specialist or by the RO. When the RO is delivering RAR interventions, this should be recorded as such, as it’s distinct from their offender management activity. The RO should ensure the service user is engaging with the process and making progress.

All appointments instructed by the RO, whether delivered by the RO or other RAR provider, are enforceable.

The RO should be assessing whether the person’s needs are being met through the planned interventions and making changes if appropriate. The provider of the RAR activity should be reporting back on attendance, progress and suggested next steps.

The service user cannot be instructed to attend more RAR days than those given in their sentence. The RAR days do not necessarily need to be spaced out for the duration of the sentence, they can be completed whenever is most appropriate.

After completing the RAR activities to address the risk of reoffending, the RO can signpost the service user to further support if needed.

The outcome of the RAR intervention needs to be recorded on Delius. This should reflect whether the desired outcomes that were agreed as part of the initial sentence plan have been achieved. The RO needs to confirm that this counts as the completion of the RAR. If fewer days have been completed, the RO needs to record the rationale for taking this decision, a description of the progress that’s been made and the outcome achieved.

Pick of the Week

This blog has a tendency to move along at some speed, covering a vast range of subjects and I'm conscious that some contributions tend to get lost in the haste. With this in mind I'm returning to the practice of picking out some that particularly catch my eye each week. I'm kicking this off with a rare contribution from the other side of the desk:-

There is a distinct stench of irony that a fair few of the lobbyists skulking the corridors of Whitehall are no better than those of us probation officers sit across the desk from on appointments. The only real difference being the lobbyists have someone who listens to them. 

My opinions have changed through my year and a half dealings with NPS. Inside a prison, the others that share the same houseblock have nothing nice at all to say about probation officers, "they are there just to recall you", "Just sit there and tell them what you think they want to hear" amongst many horror and sob stories that would have Simon Cowell in tears during your audition. 

Barring my first encounter with my probation officer using the famed blitzkrieg approach, things have not really been that bad. The majority of people I have dealt with, like many posters on here, seem to have a genuine passion and a degree of care you would hope to meet on entering the system. That being said, I can't see any bright future for NPS. The bandwagon is already rolling. It is no longer about the needs of the community they serve or those on licence. The only statement that matters now is the ones given at the annual shareholders meetings. 

If anyone thinks or hopes for a failure by these companies, to quote Lawrence Fishburn "You're living in a dream world, Neo". This is only the start. There is no opportunity to evolve and adapt. The cause isn't helped by those who wear rose tinted glasses. I am sure there were many things that could have been improved upon within the probation service, although there are a fair few will argue with that. 

I have been passed around from one probation officer to another, from one who you get along with and treats you like a person to, mystic meg with attitude. It can't be helped because that's the way things seem to be at the moment.

******
E3 means that Pre Sentence Reports, PSR's are now Fast Delivery Reports FDR's, and written by unqualified staff (PSO's). Probation officers are to be forced to work in prisons (mainly writing parole reports), and replaced by PSO's in the community offices (managing huge caseloads). End of 'End to end offender management' as offenders in custody to have no contact with outside probation officers. Tiering models are to change so caseloads will rise (as if it wasn't busy enough already). Mandatory use of ARMS and VISOR slowly aligning probation with the police.

******
A hopeful Inspector hopes the CRCs will see the big picture and not block inspections with confidentiality firewalls. A 'hopeful' inspector will frighten no one.

A muddled Inspector says that policy and probation instructions will not be the cause of any failures as these will be around 'time and priority' and resources. How can policy be divorced from resources? And what a wacky stance where probation instructions are not risk assessed to see if they are achievable in a resource depleted world.

An Inspector actually says something that will allow him to sleep at night:-

"I am worried about the prospects for staff and the future staffing levels and I fear the Sonnex scenario being recreated with inexperienced staff, possibly less trained and qualified than they were before, with larger caseloads, managed and supervised by more remote managers."

******
"There is much less emphasis on ‘have you done this, that and the other to the required standard?’ and more on the question ‘have you made a positive impact on this offender?’ and ‘explain to us how you did it’.” - Paul Wilson

What an interesting question, especially with probation services being run by ruthless international catering companies and ministerial incompetents. Professional standards are no longer required, resources hardly exist and probation officers are being sacked en-masse to be replaced by electronic monitoring, Skype and unqualified/inexperienced new recruits. The CRC's Sodexo Links et al has decimated what's left of probation and the NPS' E3 is set to do the same. If there are any positive answers to Mr Wilson's question they may include the words "by a miracle".

I'd like to know what the HMIP expects probation (best practice) work to be, and the ways it expects probation services to provide it. It's very strange it has "inspected" the quality and impact of the current TR-damaged services provided, and there's little comment on what we know to be the failings of these services.

******
The latest outrage in this disaster beggars belief! I understand that some PSOs in my NPS area have been "directed" to work for the failing CRC for up to the next 12 weeks. What's all that about?!

******
After the long transitional period - honeymoon? Wilson now says no more slack on the 'serious transitional issues' and that in future TR will be held to account. The pressure to fiddle the figures will intensify and hopefully these antics will be widely shared through this blog. The serious transitional issues won't go away, because they are inherent in the design and structure of TR - a crab will never walk straight.

******
At what point do "transitional issues" get recognised by the authorities for what they are, which is structural problems? Calling them "transitional" is unhelpful, because of the implication that they will reduce over time - which we simply aren't seeing, just more of the same nonsense, day after day, and it'll only get worse when the various cuts start biting.

******
I went through the recent inspection and it was crystal clear that the inspectors did not want to hear about anything negative - not one person in our office commended managers for how they deal with change yet when we saw the feedback it was glowing and hastily transmitted by the ACE....independent my arse.

******
Yesterday I was due to have 6 offenders coming in to see me. Only 1 turned up. Travel was not an issue as all were local. I work for CRC and have noticed a steady decline in attendance. Even after engagement panels, no improvement. The attendance rate of my caseload used to be excellent with barely a need to breach. Now I am considering breach on a number of cases many of whom have had engagement panels arranged (not always attended). I don't like breaching and I don't like being in this position. This change is steady and appears to have bedded in. This would seem to be a direct result of the changes in case management and officer status? associated with the changes under TR. I am now so unsure in the work that I do. A position I have never been in before. I do not really know now what my job is. That's the true outcome of TR. My community is less safe from offending of that I am sure. Recidivism is increasing and at a pace.

******
In my CRC, staff are demoralised and dismayed at recently announced redundancy proposals to the more expensive, longer serving, specifically qualified frontline staff, in favour of a cheaper workforce. This is a clear drive towards deprofessionalisation. By splitting the service into two sectors (NPS/CRC) and then cherry picking which staff to lay-off, we have become more diluted and divided, whether we are in a union or not, and therefore less of a threat to employers through TU influence or threat of action? 

I hate to paint such a pessimistic picture, but this is what I as a local activist have observed during the whole TR debacle. There are those who might trumpet the brave new world of the CRC, with its sweeping new broom of change! I would simply point out the potential for disaster by such dilution of professionalism and increased disintegration of probation provision, by observing the all too frequent incidents of private firms getting it very wrong (G4S - Medway etc...), and the apparent decrease of supervision standards and increase in SFOs, perhaps as a result of increasing challenges to communication and information sharing between both sectors.

******
"As a consequence of the constant monitoring and target culture, staff across the criminal justice system manipulate statistics to avoid the penalties of failure." (Harry Fletcher, the Guardian, 8/11/09).

Set up any system and some organisations and individuals will look for ways of fiddling, cheating and using bribery to gain advantage. We see the long shadow of corrupt practices in sport, business, banking, cash for honours, tax evasion, etc, etc. In the public sector the fiddling was more about gaining stars, kudos, foundation status. When the private sector gets involved there is the added incentive of fiddling to boost profits.

When a practice is commonplace it's usually asserted that it's human nature to do it. But it's not because human beings hate the experience of knowing that they have been fiddled and taken for a ride, it grates and infuriates. But when you get a prime minister asking, in relation to climate change and conservation 'Why should we be the only saint in a brothel?' (Call me Dave, Biteback) you can appreciate that the wrong social norms are being encouraged. Therefore what does it matter if you get caught with your pants down in a brothel? 

Very little if you are G4S and you have been overcharging for tagging. Mind you it helps to weather such storms when you have Board with lobbying power - members have included former home secretary and defence secretary John Reid (now Baron Reid of Cardowan), former Met police commissioner Lord Condon (who earns £124,600 as a non-executive director of G4S), former prison governor Tom Wheatley and helpfully for G4S' energy meter monitoring arm, the former energy regulator Claire Spottiswoode is a non-executive director (earning £56,800).

******
Chief's blog on Merseyside says that next Weds 20th we will all be receiving a letter about the 'flex teams' we'll become part of. It'll also (I think) give locations of said teams. Admin to be told imminently about location and basically it's all systems go except Case Management System not up & running for ages as IT isn't capable yet. Estates high on the agenda and confirmation that county boundaries will be merged ie Cheshire with Merseyside and Manchester with Cheshire.

******
According to G4S, staff thinking for themselves is undesirable – it's just a matter of following correct procedures. This management method may be fine for a production assembly line, but good management of people requires nuanced responses, often using imagination, empathy, compassion, discretion and so forth. There is no correct procedure that I know of that if followed will develop trusting relationships. Such procedures may work with dogs, but not with humans who do think for themselves. Essentially G4S advocate procedures that dehumanise and emphasise behavioural control and creates an oppressive culture.
G4S lies somewhere between Battersea Dog's Home and Guantanamo Bay.

In such a culture the staff are not unthinking, as the Panorama programme showed, they can be quite adept in interpreting the standing orders. They will abuse you out of range of the CCTV, they will squeeze your injured hand because they know it will be more painful, they will punch the wall to demonstrate their power before towering over you. And, later with their colleagues, they will be reflective and boastful: swapping stories and sharing abusive techniques, they will fiddle reports of incidents to reach targets and avoid penalties. This is not unthinking behaviour – to coin a phrase, it's the banality of evil.

******
But as we know, unless or until such behaviour is exposed it gets results for the organisation, and so for as long as possible its tolerated, ignored or excused by EVERYONE with a finger in the pie, aka "stakeholders" or "partnerships" or plain & simple political ideology. The Howard League piece above proves that.

All that G4S, Serco, Sodexo etc etc are concerned about is the Bottom Line in terms of profit for shareholders. We know this. Its been hailed on this blog since its inception. The senior managers have no loyalty to anyone but Mammon; just look how quickly they jump into each others' graves once the bullet has been fired.

But why does the abuse & corruption & scandal continue when its so plain to see? Why do G4S lose one contract yet achieve another almost immediately? Why are they even considered suitable for any contracts when, just to give one example, they are by their own admission guilty of defrauding the government to the tune of (probably much more than) £100M. Similarly Serco, and no doubt many others. Where are the criminal proceedings? Likewise with bankers: "Erm, enough time has elapsed that we'll forget about the mass criminality & eyewatering fraud within the banking system."

The celebration of & plentiful rewards for deception & self-deception are beyond my comprehension. Crime DOES pay if you're a wealthy, white collar chum.

******
The beneficiaries of outsourcing and TR are the private companies and those individuals who occupy high positions; the politicians and all the well-paid consultants who are ever ready to draw on their experience in the public sector to serve the private sector. When something goes well in the system they are quick to claim credit, when it goes awry they go into denial. But they don't want to reverse any reforms because they enjoy their rewards too much. These are the greedy men/women, they lean together. So when a child is bullied by G4S, the culpability is collective. Sure, your local CEO was not at the crime scene, but the Godfathers never are – they just run the system on behalf of their paymasters.

******
No one is pretending or implying that G4S has a monopoly on abuse. Of course it was rife in residential homes in the public sector, in churches and elsewhere. There is focus on G4S because it was the subject of the Panorama programme and G4S is newsworthy because of past criticisms – the Olympic's fiasco, the tagging scandal, and other controversies.

But I agree: when it comes to abusive practices you need to look through a wide lens. In all walks of life, in schools and workplaces, in relationships of all descriptions, there seems to be no end to examples of bullying, predation and abuse of power. I suppose in this context the main difference between the likes of G4S and the public sector, is that the former makes a profit on the £140,000 it charges annually for looking after each child.

******
My post was admittedly focused on current scandal but, as others have noted, it applies to any dysfunctional environment. Anon above is spot on that the core elements are "bullying, predation & abuse of power". I and others have previously compared the behaviours of the greedy & power hungry to the behaviours of DV perpetrators, i.e. take control, keep control, bully & humiliate, keep the victim in a state of anxiety, keep changing the 'rules' & deflect all responsibility onto the victim. Just apply that template to NOMS...

I spent over 20 years trying to unravel such abusive behaviour in the broadest range of perpetrators, from professional sports personalities to CEOs of international businesses, from local councillors to police officers and firefighters, lawyers and shopkeepers, drug dealers, welders and civil engineers. In all that time the hardest behaviours to challenge were those within the organisation, e.g. malicious line managers, ambitious ladder-climbers, politically motivated wannabe's. And with role models like Thatcher, Blair, Brown & Cameron, why wouldn't they see that behaviour as the way to achieve "success" ?

******
It's inevitable that young people exposed to such horrific abuse at Medway will present with further behavioural, emotional and psychological difficulties on their release. One mother reflected on this fear in relation to her son. Young people such as those filmed will be at a higher risk of harming themselves or members of the public, thus escalating future risks should they 're-offend and become caught up in the revolving door of CJ provision. Ultimately, they will transfer into the adult arena and carry with them further risks to self and others.

Services for young offenders should ensure that provision treats young people as 'children'. They are not exempt from the provisions of the Children's Acts (1989 +2004). This statutory duty has to be reinforced and upheld in any setting where adults work with children. It also made me worry about the behaviour and attitudes of the adults who have now been sacked from Medway when they are away from cctv surveillance in their family and social settings.

******
The cull in Staffordshire tactfully announced by senior management yesterday (but NOT for the West Midlands part of the SWM Probation area - at least not for main grade PO's) was made even less appealing as management have admitted there are still around 100 agency staff in post across the SWM area, costing God knows how much. They haven't deigned to consider voluntary redundancy to front line staff, despite offering this to a select group in head office some time ago. What a farce. . however, we are well used to being kept on tenterhooks, as we've been waiting for the chop for years ever since Stoke and Wales were singled out for an ill-fated 'pilot' for TR some time back. Investors in People - NO!!

******
They have to do certain things and Napo reps should be all over this with the appropriate rules on the process. The Local reps had better get their fingers out too and challenge the model proposed and dust off the better than EVR rates that you have. The announcement is misguided in that it has to minimise dismissals and show a process to do so. Individual and union ET claims have to be the main ambition for unfair dismissals. Reads like they are making that evidence trail easy to collect and deliver winnable cases.

******
Joe says "sentencers do not seem to care too much" about the future of probation. Trouble is sentencers have no public means to express their feelings appropriately. I have no doubt they do care when they see court POs rushing around like headless chickens doing several peoples' jobs. They probably care that monitoring community orders and breach procedures have gone down the tubes because of the split between NPS and CRC and probably also commercial confidentiality. There is a very great danger that sentencers will lose confidence in probation services entirely.

******
Whilst I very much admire (and to some extent envy) Joe Kuipers' optimism, enthusiasm & positivity, I also tend to agree with the Anon posts highlighting that inherent in the demolition derby that is TR too many people have gotten away with too much without being brought to book for their actions, e.g. Grayling, Romeo, Brennan, Spurr etc. Ideologue politicians and allegedly political neutral civil servants have expedited a disastrous series of decisions, skirting around any notion of accountability whilst ignoring all evidence that told them it was risky. They toyed with the Public Accounts Committee & it is probably only the General Election that saved them from a further savaging by Ms Hodge. But as highlighted in the extracts posted on this blog today, where is the follow-up by the PAC? This is supposed to be the Committee that protects the public purse & reins in (or at least acknowledges) misuse, malpractice & incompetence.

******
Sounds exactly like a DRR to me, formerly a DTTO. Yes probation has been providing these interventions to drug users for years. This was much better under DTTO when probation was better resourced, the Orders were lengthier and court reviews were always attended. IOM built on this model and this has been a success for probation too. Surprisingly none of this is mentioned in the article. That David Hanson MP is a weasel as he was a Justice Minister so his comments should have included all of the above.

Where's NAPO and the Probation Institute in all this, the "probation voice"? I assume their phones just ring and ring when the journalists call for a comment!

******
Again, I would expect the Probation Institute to take a lead on setting the record straight on this, probation has been engaging in exactly THIS for YEARS until we were stopped, as pointed out DTTOs then DRRs. I always loved it when Judges gave positive feedback to service users (or more accurately endorsed the Probation Officers positive report when progress was made). Some ignorant Civil Servant will be getting plaudits for bringing in a system the CJS and Probation had been doing for years until they were made to stop. It really would be funny if our professionalism had not been so decimated.

******
'A source close to Mr Gove added: “One of the principle aims is to make sure we effectively tackle the root causes of re-offending.'

The Tories need to spell out what they consider to be the root causes and whether these are actually being aggravated by other Tory polices in the fields of welfare, housing, etc... And if they seriously want to reduce the prison population they have to transfer money from the prison's budget to improve social provision and stop shrinking the probation, youth and other services that help to facilitate rehabilitation and community reintergration.

As a magistrate who was involved in the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre observed:

'So very often we talk about the underlying cause of offender behaviour as being substance abuse; but that is not the underlying cause.’ That often comes back to issues to do with ‘welfare benefits, housing, living conditions employment etc.'

******
Michael Gove is well aware of probation's history and if not I'm sure the Lord Chief Justice is knowledgeable enough to set him straight. Who is going to be part of this panel?  Surely not any of our TR-friendly former probation Chief Officers that seem to keep popping up?

It was always understood that re-offending is prevented by working in partnership to improve literacy, job skills, employment opportunities, family support and access to housing, etc, and tackling addictions, health problems and mental health are key parts of the process. This was what the probation service did before some idiot came up with silly terms like "public protection", "risk management" and "desistance" to label and change what probation officers do.

Sadly this has feathered the careers of countless politicians, academics and probation secondees to the Home Office, but has achieved nothing for the probation service which is no longer mentioned by the government in the same sentence as "rehabilitation" and "reducing re-offending". It's probably easier to ignore us; out of sight, out of mind and all that. 'Tough on the causes of crime'?! Didn't Blair say that too?!

TR Day One

As part of my remit to assist the MoJ, and particularly Dame Ursula Brennan, Permanent Under Secretary, in her decision as to whether it's safe to proceed, here are the comments from readers as to how Day One of the TR omnishambles went:-

Am hearing ndelius has been rendered pretty useless. People in wrong halves, cases missing, people unable to access cases they are working on, partners who specialise in high risk cases now in CRC and locked out of their cohorts, whole teams duplicated. An inconsistent system is worse than no system because you THINK you have checked something but you haven't. Sometimes. Maybe. All down to Grayling's speed in favour of haste. He has crashed the train.

********
From Crown Court admin officer:

'I have had some email correspondence asking for us to update Delius in order that LDUs can allocate cases. Unfortunately, Delius is not allowing Court staff to update any existing cases, or input new ones - we are therefore unable to input new report requests, result existing report requests or put +12 month sentences without a report.

The issues have been reported and it has been escalated up to Steria, without any indication at present as to when the problems will be resolved'

Footnote: as an OM there is loads wrong with Delius- cant add contacts, cant find offenders, can still access ones transferred to opposite company, incorrect caseload. Can only find people when the 'nationwide' search facility is used - you try finding Jim Brown outta that lot - hundreds of them!!!

*********
Just been to the CRC away day, it took all my effort not to tell them to F***Off, what a load of bull. I would have rather have been made redundant, or have I?

*********
I know today was full of falseness from management about CRC and computers that didn't work, not official instruction yet of processes still being written. Such a massive disconnect.

*********
What bloody mess at work. The computer system not working properly, cases can't be allocated, cases remain unallocated, transfer of cases not recorded, RSR tool down causing huge delays in risk and allocation.

Furthermore, we received an email from management stating they want NPS & RCR staff to help out and cover each other. We have been advised that transfer of cases will now be a 'slow' process rather then a 'big bang'. Absolutely utter chaos & disaster. Effectively they want CRC staff to continue to write reports, attend oral hearings and make decisions regarding risk until everything is smoothed out. They can PISS OFF if they think me or my colleagues in CRC are going to help them smooth out the system. Shafted into CRC to be sold off & you want me to help you out. I will do everything to make sure it doesn't work.

********
I'm of the same view. I have the view that in around 12 months time my new employer will replace me with a less expensive version. I've now decided to do absolutely fuck all apart from the absolute minimum and if targets are missed just to advise my MM that if he wants me to give 100% then my workload must be the same!

They can all fuck right off.

********
As DO in NPS today -interesting, I was called on by colleagues on CRC's to provide information, they apparently have no authority to hold, so lots of knock backs; most took it well. Also, another issue arose. Our IOM (All CRC) have had a dedicated OM completing all HDC requests on those inside for under 12 months. Now, as some of those are ex-NPS cases, CRC staff cannot access the information they need to make a safe and informed decision. I asked my TM if, by sharing info I had on one such person would be a breach of Data Protection Act, I was advised by TM that as there was Safeguarding issues, I should at least alert the IOM colleague of same. I did, mentioned past history, and further checks which needed to be made if a safe and reliable report was to be provided to HMP. The colleague did not make any further enquiries about the address, i.e who lived there and the history of DV, but chose just to say No as another member of staff - (me) raised concerns about who may live at the proposed address. Now I would not argue with the decision made, but it is not an assessment, and I suspect those sorts of decisions are being made all over the place - and people will remain in custody, and/or be released without any evidence or informed assessment.

********
Great day in AP today. Systems up the wall, Cook not turned up to cook residents evening meal. Get a chippy pie and chips for them? Good idea but the bank accounts have been closed down and can't get money. I don't think there is any part of the service that isn't in chaos.

********
Just got back from leave today to find an email from our new Chief (who shall remain nameless). Reading between the lines it appears that we need to prepare to be held to account for when our clients offend. I'm not sure how we would word that (not that we now can) in a PSR. I can feel a complaint to NAPO coming on.

Two clients also not seen and no letters sent out as the OM covering could not access Delius to see if it was a Formal Warning or Risk of Breach. 

We don't need to wait for the wheels to come off, they already have!

********
Tears from colleagues today and one has walked out after an argument with a manager (not their own) about their 'negativity' in the face of NOMS edicts that don't make sense. It's hell out here and all so unnecessary.

*********
Did anyone else notice the new FDR's?- Someone in my office thought it was the beginning of the end for SDR's and set up to assist and guide CRC's to function. So cynical.

**********
Delius has never been fit for purpose and now their trying to make it do even more. I had 3 clients all booked on the same programme. Programme got pulled due to lack of staff. Now I have 12 pages of alerts telling me each individual session has been cancelled. Cheers guys, that'll take me a good hour to clear while I'm looking for the things I might really need to know and I'm not doing my job.

*********
E-mail after Delius went back on. "Please can you check your caseloads and make sure they are correct." I have no idea. Most of my cases were allocated to me on Wednesday half an hour before you turned it off. I don't know who these people are or whether I should have them or not.

*********
In my office they still kept allocating transfer cases from NPS to CRC, even when the system was down! Cue me getting e-mails regarding new cases and next appointments and I can't even access their records, nor have the case files appear to have turned up! I probably should chase this up, but I am so demoralised I've lost the will to care.

*********
Our admin got NPS last week as our area cocked up big time and allocated virtually EVERY AO to CRC. You could not make it up as TODAY AO NPS could not use Delius at all as THEY forgot to reallocate them as NPS. A manager from CRC came in and asked us very politely if she could check something on our system about a death in custody. To be fair she was as perplexed by this debacle as much as we are. I felt for her. 

Don't get me started on the new risk tool and the Ikea instructions on how to input this on the system. No workload adjustment for this either. Three hours to do an FDR even though a round trip to the nearest video link takes that long in travel alone for us in the sticks.

This has now been made even less achievable due to the new risk tool which basically states the bleeding obvious for most cases as we are kind of trained to erm, know anyway. I did my first RSR on a shop theft, recd a DRR who are all CRC and it took me over an hour to find this fact out even though I knew he could not go to NPS with my proposal. It's a joke but what can I do to argue the toss?

*********
Is anyone who has any power reading this blog to see exactly how everything is FUCKED UP. Don't try and pat yourselves on the back by telling yourselves lies that all is going smoothly. Hasn't anyone got the balls to stand up and be honest and admit the truth that we are in a mess. I for one feel demoralised and have no motivation to do this job.

The Prisoners 3

Monday saw the last episode of the three-part BBC1 documentary series 'The Prisoners' filmed over 12 months at HMP Pentonville and Holloway. Given the grossly disturbed backgrounds of the vast majority of prisoners featured in this and the previous two programmes, I defy anyone to adequately explain to me why it was felt some time ago that a social work qualification was no longer felt appropriate for new probation officers?

We've seen Jayde from previous episodes and she's displaying the same dangerous attention-seeking behaviour in this one. Still extremely emotionally immature, she is finding it difficult learning that behaviour has consequences and a longer time in prison may well mean that she loses her beloved dog. Whatever her issues with alcohol, drugs or relationships "I don't often want to talk about the past," she desperately needs counselling, preferably in the community. 

There's almost no chance of that of course because it's too expensive, virtually unavailable and in any case one missed appointment would swiftly lead to her being 'signed off' as not being motivated. No such policy is available to the Probation Service of course. We have to stick with such clients right through all their chaotic phases and try and do our best.  

Ben was interesting because he positively chose prison as a far faster route to drug treatment and a residential rehab place. He was proved right, but such a facility is very expensive, also virtually unavailable, and sadly it was never likely to work given the current way in which such service's are organised and located. I loved the oft-repeated refrain "No-one tells me nothing!" Anyway, we left him seemingly making his own efforts at dealing with his drug issues. On the news of the death of his father, following a reconciliation, it was particularly moving to hear him say that he'd "lost him again." Ben probably needed counselling I think.

On the face of it Michael and Chloe were in many respects an unlikely couple, not least due to their 20 year age difference. Despite what she said, Chloe had difficulty with a partner that didn't show her violence. I'm sure she could benefit from counselling. Michael was much more 'grounded' and soon realised that there was little chance of their relationship flourishing and Chloe in particular remaining drug-free, unless their release-dates coincided. They didn't and Chloe soon spent most of £700 not on a sofa, but drugs and similar. Poor old Michael only got a £20 postal order paid into private cash. She summed things up pretty well I thought "I did everything I had promised not to, and didn't do anything I had promised to."

Despite this, it was interesting to see Chloe indulge in some distorted reasoning and try and shift responsibility for her drug-taking onto poor Michael during a prison visit. "You think I'll mess up - so I might as well." Later she reflected "I'm a drug addict. I relapse. That's what I do." Wisely Michael calls it a day on their relationship and I hope he's doing well. He could see clearly that she would remain a negative influence upon him as he tried to dealt with his own journey of abstaining from drug use.   

Clearly Lauren had been inside many times previously for drug-related offending, but on this remand had clearly decided that at age 40 it was time to change, and found herself for the first time doing a job on the servery. She'd decided, like many do, that she'd had enough of prison and the lifestyle and was going to seriously try and not come back. I don't think it was the result of any particular 'intervention', she'd just had enough full stop, and fortunately a DRR was on offer. 

Some might say prison had 'worked', but it's clearly been a long expensive business and other methods might have been effective rather earlier. She got a DRR, but the risk of alcohol substitution clearly remained an issue. I was struck with the drug worker saying it was her 'last chance.'  In probation I'm not sure we recognise that sentiment. Failure always remains delayed progress for us.

Sign the No10 petition here.