Napo AGM 2018

Top Floor Travelodge with seaview and within spitting distance of Morrisons, Home Bargains and Wetherspoon's. On a Friday night, does life get much better than this I ask myself? Suitably fortified with snacks and cheap wine, good internet access means there's just time to knock out a quick report on day one of the Napo AGM here in grand but ever-so-slightly beyond its best Southport. I do like the place though and was here a couple of years ago to see the amazing Vulcan fly in formation with the Red Arrows in that year's airshow. But to business.

Worries about quoracy seem but distant memories nowadays and hence business started on time, a distinct departure from historic practice I well remember. Like last year at Nottingham, we sailed through a number of non-contentious motions on pay and training with worthy cases made for each, but for me things got rather more interesting at a proposal for a Retired Members' Committee, wittily suggested by the indefatigable Jeremy Cameron. Why doesn't Napo harness all that energy and experience so obviously present at so many AGM's of late? 

It's a damn good question and one I suspect that fills the 'Top Table' with some trepidation only skirted around by Keith Stokeld's objection. It easily passed never-the-less and I suspect is an idea that will prove to have legs. It was interesting, but somewhat alarming to hear that the Trade Union Organisation Committee only has one member and a former retired member felt compelled to give voice to her very negative experience having joined the group last year. I've said it numerous times in the past - there is a fundamental dysfunctionality at the heart of Napo that has yet to be addressed. Maybe it will fall to the retired members getting organised to sort it out?

It would seem that the accounts have generated some particularly tricky written questions this year that will take 24 hours to try and answer with lots of reference to 'information held back at HQ'. A half-hearted presentation on a whole 'digital upgrade' left most of the audience underwhelmed, which should be alarming in itself if the eye-watering cost not far off £100,000 is any where near correct. What bothers me is the quality of the content rather than the damned 'digital' platform. 

There's always a buzz of excitement when Chair of Steering Committee Jan Peel waves a yellow sheet and mutters the words 'Emergency Motion'. So it was that we hear    
the General Secretary is to be asked to account for the Certification Officer's recent decision in the Peros case, assuming conference passes the motion tomorrow. Should be interesting in a number of ways and particularly with regard to the role of the NEC.

I'm afraid I was hugely underwhelmed by star speaker Lord Fred Ponsonby, co-chair of the Justice Unions and Family Court Parliamentary Group. Billed as a 'good speaker' it was as if he'd either mislaid his carefully-crafted rallying cry or had been lent on to re-write it. Apart from discussing practice regarding DV cases as a Magistrate, I have no idea what he was rambling on about. 

More uncontentious business covering disability, family justice, health & safety and sickness management were passed and filled the afternoon following some very good presentations on BAME issues by an invited panel, including Kilvinder Vigurs Operational Director for NPS London. A Constitutional Amendment allowing electronic voting was carried with some concern expressed over the role of workplace meetings, but opposition to ViSOR and vetting was vociferously aired with only muted dissent. "Not culturally part of probation" the motion was easily carried.    
        

CRCs and Domestic Violence

Well, what a surprise. CRCs no longer have the trained staff, inclination or ability to deal adequately with DV cases. All this was predicted, the warnings were ignored and somebody has to carry the can. So far it's just Michael Spurr. Here's the press release from HM Probation Inspectorate:- 

Community Rehabilitation Companies are failing to tackle domestic abuse and keep victims safe

Community Rehabilitation Companies are not doing enough to rehabilitate perpetrators of domestic abuse or keep victims safe, according to a new report out today. HM Inspectorate of Probation found poor practice was widespread in Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), which supervise low and medium-risk offenders across England and Wales.

Inspectors found probation staff did not have the skills, experience or time to supervise perpetrators properly. In more than half (55 per cent) of the cases that inspectors looked at, perpetrators of domestic abuse were not making enough progress on their court orders. In too many cases, perpetrators were drifting through their probation periods, rather than getting the support and challenge they needed to change their behaviour.

The report also raises concerns about the role of probation staff in preventing future incidents. Probation staff tended to underestimate risks and work to protect victims and children was not good enough in seven out of ten cases (71 per cent).

Too often, home visits – which can help staff to assess the potential risk to partners and children – were considered a luxury. Inspectors found that in cases where a home visit should have taken place, fewer than one in five (19 per cent) had been completed.

Chief Inspector Dame Glenys Stacey said some of the safeguarding practices that inspectors had uncovered were of “grave concern”.

Dame Glenys said: “Too often, we were left wondering how safe victims and children were, especially when practitioners failed to act on new information indicating that they could be in danger.”

The Inspectorate was so concerned about seven cases that they asked the relevant CRCs to take immediate action to ensure the safety of victims and children.

Inspectors found some CRCs only expected the most basic assessment of cases, giving staff a limited understanding of the offender and the context of their crime. Written reviews, which are used to monitor offenders’ progress, were completed in less than a third (32 per cent) of cases.

Inspectors found probation staff did not always draw on available information from other agencies, such as the police and social services. In some cases, they did not have the knowledge and skills to assess the impact of domestic abuse on victims and children. Others failed to understand the importance of reviewing and responding to changes, such as an offender moving in with a new partner.

Dame Glenys said: “Domestic abuse is not a minor issue – last year, more than 1 million incidents and crimes linked to domestic abuse were recorded by police across England and Wales. CRCs play a crucial role in supervising perpetrators of domestic abuse and we found they were nowhere near effective enough, yet good work could make such a difference to families, individuals and communities as a whole.

“There isn’t a national strategy to improve the quality of CRCs’ work on domestic abuse. The government’s current contracts have led to CRCs prioritising process deadlines above good-quality and safe practice. There are no specific obligations on CRCs to tackle domestic abuse and there are no direct incentives for this work either. The Ministry of Justice has the opportunity to consider this issue when it recasts contracts.”

Inspectors found issues with the delivery of ‘Building Better Relationships’, the only nationally accredited domestic abuse programme for use in the community. The course supports perpetrators to examine and change their behaviour but, in practice, it is bogged down by contractual and logistical issues.

In the cases that inspectors looked at, just over a quarter (27 per cent) of perpetrators had been referred to the programme. This is far fewer than CRCs expected and has a direct impact on their income because they are paid for each participant and can be penalised financially if there is a high dropout rate.

CRCs are stuck in a downward spiral – with fewer people starting and finishing the programme, there is less money coming through the door to fund future activity. In the cases that inspectors looked at, less than half of referrals had started their course and others were unable to start because their course had been cancelled.

Some staff had created their own alternatives to ‘Building Better Relationships’ – but these courses were not accredited, based on evidence or consistently delivered by experienced staff.

Dame Glenys said: “CRCs have developed new domestic abuse policies and guidance but this is not translating into effective practice. We found probation staff with unmanageable workloads. Inexperienced staff were managing complex issues with little training or management oversight. Some were too busy to do a thorough job, others didn’t have the knowledge to do a good job.”

Inspectors found small pockets of good practice but, overall, it was a concerning set of findings. The Inspectorate makes eight recommendations in its report, with the aim of raising the standard of probation work with perpetrators of domestic abuse and giving greater consideration to victims’ needs.

The Inspectorate also calls on CRCs to put the right training and support in place so staff can supervise perpetrators of domestic abuse effectively, manage the risk of harm to actual and potential victims, and deliver interventions that are based on evidence.

Chief Executive of Women’s Aid Katie Ghose said: “In cases of domestic abuse offences, it is vital to have the right response from probation services. Survivors of domestic abuse need to be protected, and the threat from perpetrators must be managed.

“This report shows that Community Rehabilitation Companies are failing victims, with a significant lack of understanding about domestic abuse, especially coercive control. Probation officers are routinely underestimating the ongoing danger posed to the victim, and not reassessing the level of risk involved when circumstances change. The findings of this report show that Community Rehabilitation Companies are currently not fit for purpose when it comes to domestic abuse cases, and we call on the government to urgently change this to protect survivors.”

This from the Guardian:-

Private probation firms 'put victims of abuse at risk'

Inspectors say poor practice is widespread in community rehabilitation companies

Tens of thousands of victims of domestic abuse and children are being put at further risk of harm by privatised offender supervision companies whose staff lack the skills, experience and time to supervise perpetrators, according to a new report. Inspectors found poor practice was widespread in community rehabilitation companies (CRCs), the privatised probation providers introduced in England and Wales under widely derided reforms by the former justice secretary Chris Grayling.

In 71% of cases assessed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) as part of a thematic study into CRCs’ approach to domestic abuse, work to protect victims and children was deemed not good enough. Guardian analysis suggests this figure could be equal to as many as 55,000 cases. There are 158,727 offenders under probation supervision by CRCs across England and Wales. HMIP said an assessment of previous inspections suggests as many as half – equivalent to around 79,300 cases – feature domestic abuse.

The chief executive of Women’s Aid, Katie Ghose, said: “This report shows that community rehabilitation companies are failing victims, with a significant lack of understanding about domestic abuse, especially coercive control. Probation officers are routinely underestimating the ongoing danger posed to the victim and not reassessing the level of risk involved when circumstances change. The findings of this report show that CRCs are currently not fit for purpose when it comes to domestic abuse cases and we call on the government to urgently change this to protect survivors.”

The level and nature of contact with perpetrators was sufficient to help protect victims and children in only 55% of cases looked at by the inspectorate. In the cases where there should have been a home visit, these had been undertaken in only 19% of cases. Probation staff were also meeting offenders in public spaces such as cafes, which limited the scope to explore and address sensitive and personal issues.

The chief inspector of probation, Dame Glenys Stacey, said: “CRCs play a crucial role in supervising perpetrators of domestic abuse and we found they were nowhere near effective enough, yet good work could make such a difference to families, individuals and communities as a whole.”

Inspectors raised concerns about the falling referral and completion rates for domestic violence prevention programmes, designed to reduce reoffending among perpetrators of abuse. The only course to be accredited by a public authority, called building better relationships, was introduced to probation services in 2012 in a bid to reduce reoffending.

There were 4,452 programmes started in 2016-17, a 7% fall compared with the previous year, the inspectorate says in its report. Of those who started, only 2,041 – or 45% - completed the course, a 12% drop in completions compared with the year before.

In the cases that inspectors looked at, just over a quarter – equal to 29 men – had been referred to the programme. At the time of the inspection, 13 men had started the course. However, in seven cases the course had been cancelled. “There were too few referrals to this programme,” the report says. “Many individuals experienced extensive delays before joining a course and too many did not complete one.” The inspection looked at 112 cases and interviewed 30 perpetrators of domestic abuse.

The probation sector in England and Wales was overhauled in 2014 by Grayling, who ignored warnings from within the Ministry of Justice and broke up existing probation trusts, replacing them with a public sector service dealing with high-risk offenders and the CRCs that manage low- to medium-risk offenders. After a succession of highly critical reports from the inspectorate and the justice committee, as well as derision from those working within the sector, David Gauke, the justice secretary, announced that eight private firms and the 21 CRCs in England and Wales were to have their contracts terminated in 2020, two years earlier than agreed.

Under Gauke’s proposals put out to consultation, the number of CRCs operating in England and Wales will be reduced to 11, with 10 new probation regions to be formed in England plus an additional region in Wales. Stacey said recasting the contracts presented an opportunity for the ministry to reconsider the issue of how CRCs deal with domestic abuse.

The prisons and probation minister, Rory Stewart, said: 

“We must protect victims of domestic abuse from any further suffering. That is why we have set out plans to better support victims, bring more offenders to justice and ultimately keep the public safe through our proposed domestic abuse bill. We are taking decisive action to improve CRCs by ending current contracts early, investing £22m in through-the-gate services, and we have consulted on how best to deliver probation services in the future. This report highlights pockets of good practice to build on, but more must be done. By putting in place new arrangements, we will heed the lessons from what has and hasn’t worked, so probation plays its full part in tackling domestic abuse and protecting victims.”

Richard Burgon, shadow justice secretary, said: “Once again we see how the private probation companies are failing to keep the public safe. The government must stop letting victims down and ensure that there is a complete overhaul of probation so that it puts women’s safety first.”

Probation in a Post TR World

Granada has been investigating the worrying number of SFO's:- 

LICENSED TO KILL: The shocking number of killings carried out by criminals released early from prison

An exclusive Granada Reports investigation has revealed the shocking number of killings carried out by criminals who've been released early from prison. In one part of Greater Manchester alone, over the past three years, three offenders have committed murder or manslaughter after they'd been released into the community to serve the rest of their sentence on licence.

The families of two of those victims claim they've been failed by the system that was supposed to protect them. The Probation Service Union says their members have passed breaking point and mistakes are being made. This exclusive investigation comes from our correspondent, Matt O'Donoghue.

--oo00oo--

An extremely thorough resume of the situation from the Independent:-  

If you're worried about prison conditions, you should be deeply disturbed by what happens after inmates are released

Privatisation of the probation service hasn't just made it far less effective – it's becoming downright dangerous

It’s not just HMP Birmingham – although the staggering tales of Spice-intoxicated inmates roaming the hallways and guards locking themselves into their offices certainly mark it as an outlier. The whole of Britain’s prison system is in a state of crisis. Staff working in dangerous conditions report chaos on prison wings, and feeling unsupported and fearful on a day-to-day basis. The situation is so bad that a third of those who join the prison service now leave within a year.

Figures compiled by the Labour Party, and leaked this week, found that 33 per cent of prison officers leaving their jobs in the past 12 months had been in the role for less than a year, up from 7 per cent in 2010.

The government had been publicly celebrating its success in recruiting a new generation of officers, but they should hold the champagne corks. The applause sounds rather hollow now.

Meanwhile the prison population just keeps on rising, as the number and length of custodial sentences awarded creeps upwards too. Almost a third of indictable offences carried a custodial term in 2017, and the average term spent in jail is 16 months.

Prisons are at breaking point, and the pressure they are under – due to both a lack of funding and now clearly of experience too – has led to big mistakes. A report published this week found that hundreds of sex offenders had been released from HMP Dartmoor despite posing a public risk, a result of “unplanned” release. That such an event can occur, and multiple times, demonstrates the extent to which control over the business of rehabilitation has been lost. Damningly, many of these men – who, despite their troubling crimes, should be recognised as vulnerable as well as potentially dangerous – were allowed to leave prison despite their release leaving them homeless.

Yet, this is not the full story. If you think things are bad inside prison, take a look at what’s going on outside. It’s not just prison officers buckling under the pressure, the probation service is also nearing the point of collapse.

Private companies drafted in to manage offenders in the community, and paid by results to do this, have failed utterly in their task.

Some three years ago, the probation service was split in two. The government-run National Probation Service continued to manage the most high-risk offenders, those who have committed very serious crimes or who are judged to pose a serious and ongoing risk to the wellbeing of others. And despite being streamlined, and losing a lot of its staff through redundancy, it has been assessed as continuing to do a good job. That in itself should not prompt significant celebration; it is, surely, the least we can expect from a functioning government, that it is able to protect its population from danger and exploitation.

The privatised part of the system, however, is made up of community rehabilitation companies – private organisations who bid for the work and are paid according to their achievements – who look after those offenders who are considered to pose a “low” or a “medium” risk. Their key task is to support their rehabilitation and prevent reoffending; to move former criminals on to new, positive, productive lives.

There are 21 of these companies in operation. So far, only two have managed to cut the reoffending rate. The latest assessment of their work has been damning: Dame Glenys Stacey, the chief inspector of probation, said staff at the CRCs – who are inexperienced, as a huge number of long-standing probation officers took redundancy or retirement when the service split in two – are doing a bad job of managing their caseloads. Too often, communication with their clients was taking place by telephone, with little effort to build the supportive relationships that could turn lives around.

Payment by results means these failing CRCs could make yet more staff cuts, with worse outcomes for their charges – and for the communities in which they live. Payment by results is all very well in manufacturing, for example, but when those measurable results are the health and wellbeing of our society, it isn’t just logistically challenging but also extremely high risk.

What makes the situation even more troubling is the way that some crimes are categorised. At the point of privatisation, women’s charities warned that those convicted of domestic violence may fall under the category of “low” or “medium” risk – even though it is well known that domestic violence can escalate very suddenly. That put them under the care of less experienced officers, who operate a lighter touch approach. There is little recognition in the system for the fact that the risk posed by someone under the probation service can wax and wane. How can an officer possibly know that this risk level is shifting if they have so little face-to-face contact with them? Two woman, remember, are killed by their partner or former partner every week in England and Wales.

The rapid decline in the quality of the probation service has created a dangerous cycle of neglect, where criminals who are not properly supported both pose a higher risk to the community and are also more likely to seriously reoffend – which leads to a further conviction, which then (thanks to rising incarceration rates) leads to a sentence, and yet more pressure on the buckling prison system.

The government admits, in its own statistics, that more than a third of offenders now have what it describes as “long criminal careers”. That situation is untenable.

In managing the post-prison lives of violent and dangerous criminals, the government, ironically, has proved it can do something well for itself. Too bad it is still so seduced by the whiff of profit that it’s willing to cast aside our most vulnerable in pursuit of ideology over success.

--oo00oo--

Penelope Gibbs and Transform Justice have produced a report on Domestic Violence. There was a time when you'd expect the probation voice to be prominent in such a discussion, but it seems no longer:-

Love, fear and control — does the criminal justice system reduce domestic abuse?  

Executive Summary

In my view the criminal justice system is a very blunt tool to address domestic abuse. Disposals which assist perpetrators in addressing issues which lead to domestic abuse are more likely to meet needs of all parties, including complainants, than the stress and uncertainty of the criminal process. (defence lawyer) 

I think that the whole system should work better. I don’t like the idea of just a slap on the wrist and victims feeling unprotected and perpetrators feeling like they have impunity and that there are no consequences, etc. On the other hand, I’m sort of against the whole criminal justice system – I think it does a really, really bad job. (magistrate) 

Where officers are not arresting and attempting to charge perpetrators, domestic abuse victims are not being properly protected, and criminals are not being brought to justice. (police inspectorate)

Domestic abuse is an immensely contentious area. Campaigners, police and victims agree they want to stop it, but not how this can be achieved. Some are fatalistic about the chances of changing the behaviour of those who abuse, and want all efforts focussed on furthering gender equality, supporting victims and imprisoning perpetrators. Others believe we can only reduce abuse through reforming perpetrators. 

The recent government consultation on combatting domestic abuse focussed on an expansion of restrictive civil orders and on prosecution, conviction and harsher sentences. But the College of Policing says there is no evidence that criminal sanctions stop abusers abusing. What's more, harsher sentences are associated with higher rates of reoffending. So criminal sanctions punish, but don’t help victims in the long term. 

This argument against increased sanctions is common amongst many justice reform campaigners. What complicates matters in domestic abuse cases is the complex emotional backdrop. Victims often love the perpetrators, who may be their husband or their child, and don’t want to destroy their relationship with them by involving outside agencies. This creates tension between respecting victims’ wishes and using criminal law. While everyone wants abuse to stop, views differ about how to do it. 

But if criminal sanctions don’t work well and restrictive civil orders are of limited value, what does reduce domestic abuse and the harm it wreaks? Everyone agrees that victims need more support to stay safely in their own homes or to be rehoused (if they want to), to report abuse and to leave abusive relationships. But opinions are divided as to what else is worth doing. Some are fatalistic and feel that it is not worth spending money on perpetrator programmes – that the evidence shows they don’t work because abusers are entrenched and manipulative. But others say that behaviour change is possible, with the right programmes and the right incentives. In fact there is good evidence from England and elsewhere that some perpetrator programmes do have significant success in stopping abusers continuing to abuse, and in improving relationships. And it's clear that many victims’ greatest desire is for the abuse to stop and their perpetrators to get help. In one study over half the victims interviewed wanted their perpetrators to be arrested, but most did not want their partner to be prosecuted. Instead, they wanted to “teach him a lesson” and to send an important symbolic message.

This report highlights problems with the current criminal justice response to domestic abuse cases, and outlines the interventions available, the evidence (or lack of) on their impact, and the next steps required to reduce abuse. High attrition rate in domestic abuse cases continues to be a concern. Scepticism around the use of out of court responses such as community resolutions, cautions and restorative justice means their role is potentially underestimated. The government’s proposals to expand use of the domestic violence protection order is unlikely to make a positive impact. Instead, we need to work out whether all commonly used perpetrator programmes work and expand those that do. 

Some abusers need to be imprisoned to protect current and future victims. But we cannot lock up every abuser and throw away the key. We need to stop throwing money at “solutions”, like short prison sentences, court fines and ASBO-like orders, which don’t reduce abuse, and focus instead on supporting victims and on behaviour change. Behaviour change takes time, skilled facilitators and the best of evidence of what approaches work. If we focus on getting that right, we’ll save a generation of victims – partners, family members and children - from abuse.

Pick of the Week 50

Interesting to read how many criminal justice/probation practitioners disagree with each other about the parole process ref-Worboys. Is that indicative of a broken system or a widespread lack of understanding/knowledge?

*****
That's a good point to make, as you'd expect those working in the system to have a shared understanding of procedures, protocols and responsibilities. The constant chopping and changing of processes doesn't help, nor the loss of experienced hands. It can look like the chaos of Keystone Cops – full of well-meaning energy, but full of cross purposes.

*****
In the meantime various 'Think Tanks' are positioning something that is being branded as Justice Devolution and under its banner there is the chance of another Probation revolution ranging from complete privatisation of Probation services to various hybrids under various local umbrellas. And, I am not hearing any Probation lead on these matters. Again, I ask who is speaking for Probation, who are our leaders and what are they saying? Come on people, wake up, others are deciding your destiny.

*****
It’s the right move. There must be evidence to support prosecutions and all involved must remember its ‘innocent until proven guilty’ not the other way around. “Speaking as a cop, opposed to a citizen, I’m interested in crime. If it’s a long time ago, or it’s very trivial, or I’m not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I’m not going to spend a lot of resources on it. And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.”

*****
Unless it results in spousal assaults and/or sexual assault under a banner of misunderstandings. This woman is dangerous in her trivialisations and has obviously never been a victim. No wonder London crime rates are out of control when the governor tells her officers to dismiss sexualised behaviours. DV used to be termed 'a civil matter' until the law got wise. Shame on u Cressida.

*****
I agree with evidence based prosecution and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but the timing of this policy is astounding. It was not taking the allegations of some of the victims (perhaps a presumption of misunderstanding or clumsy behaviour???) that has been the real root of the controversy surrounding the Warboys case. Perhaps it's an attempt of some sort to distance the Met from its failings with Worboys, but it's not the first controversial comments she's made in her short time in charge. Unfortunately, the devolution of justice issues to London will give her a far freer hand to impose her own ideology on the people of the capital. I think we'll be hearing from Cressida (and about her) on a pretty regular basis.

*****
Think what she says is eminently sensible and to attack her is hysterical. All she is saying is that she is only interested in behaviour that passes a criminal threshold, that actually breaches a law that's on the statue book. She rightly says treat all complainants with respect, listen to their complaint, investigate, gather evidence and then see if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. An allegation only becomes a fact if it's corroborated by evidence. What would you prefer? Trial based on allegations, or trial by evidence? Some Valentine cards may be unwelcome, but more likely the result of a misunderstanding than stalking or harassment.

*****
It's amazing how the demand for transparency with regard to the Parole Board is such an urgent priority, whilst all the failures of privatised probation services can be hidden away under the guise of corporate confidentiality. Transparency should be essential to all public services.

*****
Too much process and too many involved. The Worboys and the many other judicial challenges of Parole Board decision show that the Parole Board is not fit for making release decisions. Excepting whole life sentences, there should be fixed release dates for every prisoner. Recall periods should be in proportion to the sentence with a fixed release date, eg automatic release after a third of the remaining sentence period. Simple as.

*****
We have to accept that the Worboys decision was erroneous, but the Board generally do a good job. Some tinkering maybe around transparency and around allowing Boards to be chaired by lay people only under certain circumstances. That said, judges can make erratic chairs also. I know one who appears to sleep through most of proceedings. As much as I despise what has happened to legal aid, I fear that too much was used in paying so called 'independent psychologists' in this case.

*****
Fundamentally, the Parole Board must be doing a good job in evaluating risk if there is only a 1% chance of a parolee committing a further serious offence. The Worboy's case was more about the history of police failures to investigate at the outset and for Worboys to be charged by the CPS to adequately reflect the extent of his offending. Probation was also criticised over victim contact, but in fact all those who wanted to be kept informed were kept informed and those who did not wish victim contact had their wishes respected. The only mud thrown at probation related to some poorly drafted letters.

But as with other notorious cases – Harry Roberts with a parole tariff of 30 years spent 48 years in prison, released aged 78 – the reality is that the public would be quite content to see Worboys die in prison. It's not about future risks, it's about an enduring retribution. That's the irrationality at the heart of this case and no amount of tinkering with the Parole Board will prevent similar moral outrages in the future.

*****
The reconviction rates for serious offenders is low so Parole Board releases on the whole will always look like they’re “doing a good job”. There’s been many successful challenges of Parole Board decisions to not release. Worboys is the first challenge of a decision to release I think. It shows in too many instances Parole Board members are not suitably qualified to make release decisions. You really tell the difference when former judges, probation officers or psychologists are on the panel instead of the local butcher, baker or candlestick maker. An audit of paroled prisoners over the past 5 years would show there have been many, many dodgy Parole Board decisions, inc with illogical rationale and lack of information. This highly subjective process can be disbanded if every prisoner has a fixed released date. Not every country has a Parole Board.

*****
If you abolished indeterminate sentences, it would be compensated for by increasing the length of determinate sentences and we end up, like the US, imposing sentences of hundreds of years. Do you know of any country that does not make use of indeterminate sentences? How do they deal with heinous crimes?

*****
The IPP sentence was a move towards a ‘risk-based penal strategy’, with proportionality taking a back seat to public protection and future risk prediction. It is partly based on the US ‘3 strikes’ policy and it's heavy use of life sentences for a wide range of offences. So to the commenter above, we’re already following our friends across the pond. If the Parole Board system worked we wouldn’t have thousands of IPP’s languishing in prison many years over tariff. Indeterminate type sentences, quite legal under European law, could have fixed release dates and I question whether sentencing judges are happy knowing 15 years later flawed risk assessments will undermine the tariffs they set. 

There is not much point in parole and early release process when we have a prison system that can’t prepare people for release, a Parole Board that hasn’t the expertise and capacity to release, except serial rapists apparently, and a probation system that isn’t resourced to assist once released. We once abolished the death penalty, we ended the pre-90’s ‘one chance’ at parole, we did away with IPP sentences, and whole life sentences are now under scrutiny. There is an argument for an end to early parole and sentences without fixed release dates.

*****
Not every prisoner, probationer and hostel resident has psychological problems or personality disorders. The push to ‘screen’ all for PD without their knowledge is very concerning. So is the drive for PIPE prison wings and hostels which force individuals into psychological interventions to be released or be granted a hostel bed. How much is being spent on this PIPE rubbish? The only ones seeming to benefit are the psychologists!

*****
I absolutely agree re the psychologists benefiting. PD services seem to have created a whole new self-interested and self-absorbed industry. If you ask any MoJ/ NHS psychologist to assess someone for PD or anything else it seems they make it their purpose to find something to 'treat', despite their being very little treatment that service users will actually engage with.

*****
“PD” has become an industry unto itself. “PD” probation officers are running around generating importance for themselves. “PIPE” has become the buzzword for AP’s, which amounts to PSO’s having a group chat about once a week and an inexperienced psychologist telling them what they already know. 

Every offender on my caseload has been “screened in” (not be me) for “personality disorder”. None are aware they have been categorised for “PD” and are being discussed and assessed for psychological interventions (I’m not sure what is actually on offer). Most just need a job and a decent place to live! I get it, psychologist have to eat, but there’s probably more “PD” amongst the Probation managers!

*****
I agree with these sentiments. Probation has moved away from the social to the psychological, and people on our caseloads have been pathologised.

*****
10% of all Approved Premises and 50% of the female AP estate is provided by the Voluntary Sector a great team. Up until 45 years ago all Probation Hostels & Homes were provided and run by voluntary sector providers, some very small and local. It was not until legislation in the early 1970s that Probation Committees were first allowed to directly run Probation and Bail Hostels. Alongside the expansion of new Probation & Bail Hostels run by Probation Committees over the next 30 years, many previously voluntarily managed Probation Hostels were 'taken over' by the Probation Service and their assets absorbed in to the Crown Estate.

*****
This is good news but the demise of supported housing “hostels” and move-on accommodation is just as risky for Probation and the public. Two high risk of harm services have disappeared in my county with a loss of 24 bed spaces. Decent supported housing providers are being edged out of the market by profiteering companies, CRC writ large....

*****
Addiction defines a persons identity. It dictates what you do, and it's what you do that lays the fabrics and blocks that shape identity. The labels that are attached to an addict may compound things, but it's the addiction itself that creates the identity. Physical dependency is painful and traumatic, but short-lived, and the first necessary step to beating addiction. Staying clean is the complicated bit. A whole new identity is needed, a re-creation of the self. 

A three year programme as described above goes a very long way in addressing that need for a changed identity, it should be applauded, but there's also a concern for me. An addict can go to prison for three years, create a new identity for themselves, often a healthy one in the gym, stay off drugs the whole three years, but when that new-found identity is removed upon release, the familiar structures, the people gone that see you as your new identity defines you, many return to their old familiar self's and begin to use again. 

Spending three years in a community described above, helping to build that community, getting a sense of purpose and self worth, and doing so with a shared commonality with the others on the programme must certainly create that new identity. But it's only temporary and there must be a huge sense of loss when the time comes to move on. Those are dangers that I hope the programme can mitigate along the way, and I hope all that are lucky enough to be part of it really find it a life changing experience.

*****
Similar thoughts and I see value in the scheme as you do. For the majority though services need I think to focus on those issues in the local community which requires continuity of investment in community resources.

*****
No one saying anything about a connection between rising violent crime in London and the decimation of probation service as well as criminal breeding grounds that prisons have become? Cuts to public sector including the massive cuts to youth service and policing over past 10 years or so, social services and YOT's mean far less preventative work and opportunities to divert young people from crime. Social media and addiction of millions of young people to violent gaming is also playing a part. In addition reduction in time parents can spend with their children because they are having to work flat out to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not rocket science really!

*****
Now then, MoJ, look what happens when you remove a vast swathe of experienced skilled professionals from the Probation & Prison Services... you have to pay some numpty £millions to "create" an algorithm that assesses risk. Remember OASys? That was a fuck up too. Will you ever learn? No! I can't wait to read MoJ's PR about lowest prisoner numbers since the beginning of time, etc etc etc, with Young Rory singing the praises.

*****
It's my view that the third sector and the private sector are just two heads of the same dog. They structure their corporate arrangements very similar, and reward those at the top with obscene amounts of money and associated benefits. The third sector get government funding, EU funding, Lottery funding, have reduced business rates and tax and VAT breaks. They also benefit greatly from a huge amount of unpaid labour carried out by volunteers. Yet they're still prepared to involve themselves in anything that can bring in a few quid despite what reputational damage it attracts. The work programme being just one. The private sector get millions from government contracts, local councils, PCCs. They're allowed to limit their liabilities despite the vast amounts of money that they pay to shareholders, and can hide pretty much anything they want through a corporate confidentiality clause. 

It doesn't seem to matter that every inspection and report produced shows damning failures and poor practice, it's always a cry for more money. More, more, more! It's high time the government gave both sectors a good hard kick up the arse, and remind them that when they're using public funds they need to be honest brokers, and deliver the services that are being paid for in the way they need to be provided. TR is in its fourth year, the conversation should be about how to improve services and working conditions, and not about how the spoils should be shared out.

*****
Police cuts are of course going to have an impact on crime. But the rise of violent crime in London shouldn't be seen just as a criminal justice issue. It's the amalgamation and the coming together of years of shite social policies, and our neoliberal right wing Conservative government should harbour much of the blame. Much of the explanations been given relate to gangs and drugs. But if you have a drug policy that leaves drugs in the domain of criminal fraternities, then the relationship between gangs and drugs will always exist. But it's education and housing policy too. Leaving school with few or no qualifications from a class size of 40 and over pupils and living somewhere like Broadwater farm or Tower Hamlets is likely to leave the option of benefits or a zero hour contract at KFC.

Housing is a national issue, but a huge problem in London. But to raise funds many local councils are selling off social housing to the private sector. That's resulting in high concentrations of the poorest and socially deprived people being pushed into certain areas. Some call it social cleansing, but it certainly creates ghettos and large areas where social deprivation is the common defining factor. It's not drugs and gangs, just as its not drugs, drones and mobile phones that's caused the prison crisis. It's failed social and political policy. It's austerity and the decisions that are being taken to combat vicious cuts, and the government need to accept resolution will only come from being more socially oriented because the free market isn't going to fix it, the free market approach is part of the problem.

*****
T'ain't rocket science, is it? Poor social policy, closure of youth services, schools further and further away from home, bedroom tax breaks up communities, social care services decimated, family centres closing etc etc etc. Whaddaya know, an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime. What are the causes? Too much UK money going into the hands of a small number of individuals instead of into public services. And if I hear 'legal highs' blamed for anything else, I am going to scream.

*****
I used to work in Approved Premises before taking early retirement. Over the years (1998 - 2016) I attended many different training courses including OASys. It was on this course that I pointed out that at Approved Premises we occasionally accepted individuals on bail who had no previous convictions and were pleading 'not guilty' to their alleged offence. Despite this they were still subjected to an assessment process which labelled them as an 'offender'. The course tutor was unable to give a satisfactory answer. I always thought that Probation staff should be non judgement.

*****
I'm sure prison officers on the landings, already struggling with understaffing, violence, drugs, and concerned for their safety, will really appreciate trips back and forward to the office to input data in real time. Where does all this data end up?

*****
There isn't a lack of information, there's a lack of rehabilitation. Reform must be music in the ears of IT consultants. It's the old mantra of doing the same things all over again and expecting a different result. Bring in Cambridge Analytica - they know a thing or two about influencing people.

*****
A realistic quantity of quality time in contact with clientele is absolute bottom line for rehabilitation. Then by all means angst about definitions and achievement of "quality". Then fart-arse about with technology if you must. Sigh.

*****
I find it pretty amazing that Amber Rudd identifies drugs as being one of the main drivers for the creation of gangs and rising violent crime, and yet say nothing on how she intends to tackle that driver. Drugs are here, and they're not going to go away. Drugs create all kinds of problems and simply taking an ideological view that says "drugs are harmful so we won't tolerate them", is frankly to my mind idiotic and irresponsible. 

There will always be an illegal trade in drugs as there is with their legalised counterparts tobacco and alcohol, but the war on drugs is a war that doesn't need to be fought. Take them out of the hands of criminals, take the huge revenues they generate and the potential business opportunities available and do good things for society. Be pragmatic about drugs, accept they're a problem that's not going away and manage that problem in the best way possible.

*****
This is increasingly tiresome. Reams and reams of paper to tell us that what we all said would happen has happened and that the train crash we all predicted has taken place. Another enquiry taking months to tell us what we already know.

The problem with Probation is that the Prison management that took it over disrespected it, devalued it and mismanaged it. Carter put the wrong people in charge and they screwed it up completely. Nothing more to say. The solution is to extricate Probation from the grip of the Prison Service and allow it to operate independently. That will at least give us a chance. Whilst the Prison Service management continue to see command and control as a means of managing the Probation arm of the HMPPS and whilst those same people think that the private sector have anything to offer Probation, the whole ethos of the model will remain compromised and beyond repair. This was said BEFORE this shit storm started and they all know it.

*****
It's just a process of marking time until the contracts can be re-tendered. Halfway through now, keep talking about it and the seven years will soon pass. Maybe what should be being considered is the cost of probation contracts next time around. It's bound to be double if not more then the original arrangements or there won't be many willing to take them on.

*****
"An important aspect of self-legitimacy is the extent to which practitioners feel that they are enabled and supported by their organisation and that they internalise the values represented by their organisation (Bradford and Quinton 2014). In our view, the current situation means that the self-legitimacy of many practitioners is, at the very least, in some doubt. This in turn may lower morale and foster discontent with the quality services provided to those under supervision".

A few days ago, under pressure, I cancelled an appointment to visit a vulnerable, traumatised woman in prison, in order to get ahead of the "performance" priorities. I didn't seek authority for this decision, and when I mentioned it to my manager, it was nodded through. After an afternoon battering a keyboard, and hitting every performance target I had, I came home feeling... like a bit of me had died. Lord knows how my client feels, I don't, seeing as I wasn't there.

*****
This blog post more than most struck a chord with me. I did not start in the Probation profession to make my fortune, I had a zeal to make a tangible difference in all quarters that we were tasked with. I valued being a part of a cohesive profession that reached beyond itself and sought to connect with all who had similar ambitions. I was interested in creating a relationship with the people I worked with and engaging with the evidence of what worked. I valued the experience of those before me and learning from them. I valued professional supervision and on-going professional development. My skills after a decade and more of working with people is way beyond what I could have imagined when I started. When we talk about culture, it is hard to reconcile my ideas with making a profit and dividend payments to shareholders. Culture and values matter to me and those who we serve I believe.

*****
As a client of the probation service, this article has given me a very valuable insight into the difficulties faced by those who want to actually help people better their lives. It must be soul destroying to be under the influence of such regressive policies. Hats off to anyone who sticks at it. Surely the tide will have to turn soon.

*****
Attachment, responsibility, purpose, are the cornerstones for a reasonably stable life. For some, those things can't be achieved with other people. There can be many reasons why that might be so. Todays blog reminds of a book I once read many years ago (80s I think), called life after life. I've had a quick search this morning but can't find it, though there seems to be quite a few with the same title. It was really a collection of observational studies on half a dozen people that had served life sentences and how they coped (or didn't) upon release. One of the people in the book was a woman, who on release quickly found her life in chaos. She was recalled many times and the time spent on recall surpassed the time served on her original sentence. 

After serving 7years on her last recall, someone, perhaps her probation officer, suggested she might like to keep a pet, and she found herself with a dog. From that moment on her life changed, no more chaos, no more offending, and no more recalls. A sense of contentment or even happiness perhaps? Whatever it was, the animal had the most amazing and positive impact on the woman's life.

*****
If vetting is being linked to the issuing of laptops, then it would be legitimate to question if it's the integrity of the IT systems and software that's driving the need for vetting and not the user.

*****
I cannot think why. If it is, then as usual the staff are punished and made to jump through hoops for probation’s failures. Vetting or not, there will always be one person that leaves their laptop on the train! And Vetting doesn’t make IT more secure, not so long ago I recall reading about a number of police prosecuted for sharing PNC details. They were vetted! Imagine what your probation Vetting coordinators sitting in your offices will be doing with all your confidential information about you and your family?

*****
Personal view only, and it relates to purpose and identity, both of which I feel probation has struggled with in recent years. If probation is an organisation that provides assistance and support to help offenders steer their lives back onto the right track and help them maintain a stable existence (as probation once did) then vetting is not going to be an issue beyond the normal CRB check. However, once probation positions itself, and more and more sells itself, as an agency of public protection, then it becomes an 'agent of the state' and can have no real objection to being subjected to the same criteria that the state impose on other public protection agencies such as police. 

If you see probation as a service that assists offenders, helps with rehabilitation and are of course "constantly mindful" of public protection, I think you have reason to complain about the level of vetting. If however you view probation as a service of public protection that also provides some assistance where possible to the offenders you manage, then I think you have to accept the level of vetting other public protection agencies are subjected to.

*****
Canada is in the process of legalising illicit drugs, and the Republic of Ireland, a country where possession of a condom makes you a sinner, is considering legalisation of cannabis and allowing Dutch style coffee shops. Andrew Boff the very right wing Conservative member of the London Assembly has caused a huge row by calling for the legalisation of drugs in response to Amber Rudds violent crime strategy. Does the legalisation and regulation of drugs make a society more tolerant? No it doesn't. It makes it more responsible. How, in probation for example, can you help someone with a drug problem if disclosure of use is also the admission of an offence? 

Drugs are a blot on society, but only because they're management, supply, constitution and regulation are left in the control of criminal gangs. The USA's prohibition era is a perfect example of what happens when you ban supply but demand remains. There will always be a demand for drugs, and a big demand, so there will always be someone prepared to supply them. It's the basic economic model of supply and demand that our conservative government are so proud to boast about. Accept the problem and take ownership of it, otherwise it will just get worse. It's not being tolerant about drug use, it's being responsible about the impact drugs have on society.

*****
Not a vote winner the liberal government in Canada were deemed a few years ago to have no chance however standing on a platform including legalising cannabis soon changed that. For the record it is due to come into force in July and the person who has been in charge of implementation is the ex chief police officer of Toronto.

****
I don't see why an organised pilot and investigation into the pros and cons of drug legalisation could not be conducted in the UK. Select three areas defined as socially deprived, that already have a drug problem and high unemployment, allow local government in those areas to produce and sell cannabis in an organised way for 18 months, and then assess what impact it has had socially and economically on that area. I think the economic benefits would be considerable to areas like Blackpool, Grimsby or Sunderland, and the information gathered on drug related crime and unemployment would help inform national drug policy. If no benefits are realised, then just pull the plug.

*****
Any legalisation of drugs would have to remain under strict State control. Privatising or outsourcing any aspect of drug legalisation to corporations such as Sodexo, Interserve, G4s etc, would just be the same as handing back control to the criminals.

*****
I'm very disappointed with the response today's blog has attracted. Every probation officer in the country must have a case load of people that have drug issues. But no one has anything to say. It's very different if the blog is about pay and conditions, privatisation, or being let down by the unions. Everyone's shouting then. You're in it for the money, or you're in it for the cause. It's the safe place, or make a difference. Everyone makes there own mind up.

*****
There’s two comments above, perhaps from probation officers, and mine makes 3. I think it’s only nowadays PO’s are straight-laced-stick-up-the-backside types. Many of the older generation were the weed smoking type so I’m sure many have a view on this issue. In terms of the article at hand, I have mixed feelings. On one hand I support drug legalisation, taxation, etc. On the other, I do not believe it is necessarily the best way to resolve the drug problem. Legal or illegal, drugs are here to stay, but if we can’t have a proper debate about making alcohol illegal then how can we debate making drugs legal. 

I think the way forward is in pilot cities for cannabis legalisation in franchise “coffee shops” and a plant or two permitted for home growing. Other drugs may be available on prescription, such as cannabis oil, heroin, etc, but I don’t think we’ll be reverting back to opium dens any time soon. What I don’t support is this myth that legalising drugs will reduce violent crime because there are many other factors involved. This is political bullshit and not a basis for legalising drugs. Amber Rudd is talking out her backside, as is this silly Adam Smith Institute. For the record in some areas you’re more likely to be mugged buying a bottle of wine from your local offy where all the pissheads congregate than from your dealer who discreetly delivers to your house after hitting him up on Snapchat. Nobody is “going down dark alleyways”!!

*****
An appalling chapter in the history of the British Criminal Justice System and in UK politics. Disgraceful not only because it happened but because it took so many ignorant people to undermine the existing professional organisation. They were warned again and again but wanted their nose in the trough without any comprehension of what was at stake. Carter, Wheatley, Spurr and the King Rat himself, Failing Grayling - all complicit in the debacle and compromised by the obvious inadequacies of Prison Service management. Right wing thinking revealed again for what it is; concrete thinking, prejudicial and, fundamentally, stupid.

*****
In the light of the many reports, whether official, anecdotal or whistleblower, let us be totally & brutally clear what the TR project has led to. It's not - and was never - about the provision of an effective service; its not about the rehabilitation of those sent to work with probation staff by the Courts, either directly or via prison; and its not about having a skilled professional workforce. It is THIS: "All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ." Accountancy, NOT accountability.

*****
After surviving 3 years of MTCnovo I thought I was unshockable. Yesterday was the first day I have felt ashamed to be working as a probation officer. All offender managers have been instructed to inform their people managers (SPOs in MTCnovo parlance) how many service users report after 7pm and how often. Then we heard rumours of the bombshell - evening accredited groupwork programmes will not be offered by London CRC in the coming weeks/months.

For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable. If true, and my sources are reliable, this is truly a cynical cost-cutting exercise. Cynical because if they have any sense they must know that there will be "blow-back" from the Magistracy/Judiciary. They may be forced to back pedal, but in the interim they will save themselves a few more shekels to earn their annual bonuses.

Offender Managers in London CRC from the 1st May will no longer have face to face contact with our administrators when they move to a central admin hub in Bromley. We were not consulted about this move, it was yet another diktat. The fact that the powers-that-be are looking at how many service users report after 7pm strongly suggest they will close some offices at 7pm but maybe have regional offices for reporting after 7pm?

I thought the point of TR and the involvement of the private sector was to be "consumer" oriented, providing an improved flexible service compared with the dead hand of the inflexible public sector. Instead I am seeing the dismantling of a once proud service before my eyes like a slow motion car crash. God help us all.

Poor Interpretation

Seen on Facebook:-

In London the CRC staff have been told not to use face to face interpreters any more, only telephone interpreters are allowed. That is all there is money for we're told. In the past I have had a number of DV cases with no BBR on their order because of language issues where the expectation was that I do 1-1 work with them. I would never used a telephone interpreting service for such complex emotional work. I would need an interpreter present in the room, preferably the same one for all the sessions and this is how I have managed so far with those cases. If I were to be allocated a language case now with no access to a proper interpreting service I am quite sure I would not be able to work with the case. What have others' experience been of such situations? Any opinions on the subject?

This is where we are, If anybody had told me in 1992 that we would get here l would not have believed it. What we do is try and find a way.

It gets worse each and every day. On a side note our office was closed we were told those in financial hardship would get bus tokens to facilitate travel. That was a lie. The CRC has saved a fortune in office closures yet no additional bus tokens.

As for the issue you raise I think it is a disgrace. I remember when LPT brought in language line I tired it once. 20 minutes wasted as I was given the wrong pin and information no pre brief with the person on the phone and no debrief after as you have to escort the offender out. Interpretors (I'd usually book the same person each time) builds a rapport with both client and offender and now this is lost but hey phone supervision is now a thing. Why not bring in automated probation services press 1 for next appointment press 2 for...

I wonder what they do with all that extra money they got from the MoJ recently. We should ask them.

It's daft enough when you're in the same room with them cos you have no idea what they're saying ..however at least you have body language etc trouble is you have so many now that it encroaches on funding ....so yes..pass go and collect 200pounds ..it's all part of the game now.

This is dreadful. And quite discriminatory.

This puts more victims at further risk, some communities are very close and small and we cannot oversee what's happening via telephone.

I'm in a rural area - offenders in outlying villages can have to travel 6/7 miles to the nearest town then 17 miles to the office. If they work they cannot do programmes as they cannot get home!! Bus services being quite limited. They pay first £3.50 then get tokens!

Ok so everyone is responsible for their own actions and have to accept the consequences for those decisions that's life as we know it. That's why we had law and order. But profiteering from human misery, wasn't that called slavery a couple hundred years ago.

But if you book a telephone service, and explain to the interpreter what it is for and that you need them on a weekly basis for so many weeks they may be able to accommodate that with the single interpreter. You don't know until you try. Also CRC London are not alone in this, NPS are being encouraged to use Telephone Interpreting rather than face to face - much to my officers dismay as they would prefer to have someone with them too.

CRC staff are being told we're not allowed face to face interpreters. "Discouragement " is something milder I think, something that can be changed by negotiation. My big beef with this is that much important communication is lost when we are not face to face with the people we are speaking to. And this is being insisted on in a situation when good communication is already hampered by language and possibly cultural differences. English is not my first language. I have experienced for myself the myriad possibilities for misunderstanding and miscommunication and have felt their impact. Let us at least do our utmost to overcome this by insisting on the very best tools for the job rather than do the job badly and fail our service users and their victims.

I know, but I am hamstrung from saying what I really think.....

It is a shame that it should feel so risky to raise reasoned debate over essential practice issues. Surely it should be in everyone's interest to get these things right. Even the MoJ ought to be cool with investments which reduce risk of reoffending and thereby the cost of imprisonment. And if they're not then it becomes a moral choice for us to speak up.

Your PSR authors need to be making it clear to the Courts that this is happening. It's likely to lead to more people going to prison because the intervention in the community will no longer be of sufficient quality to mitigate risk.

Neither is prison of sufficient quality.

Indeed but the calculus will be that if nothing effective can be done in either case then prison, though more expensive, will at least take the DV perps off the street and mitigate the risk of absconsion, further offending etc. Mad world - so glad I left early, must be very disheartening for those like yourself who have put a lifetime of dedication into doing excellent work.

We were told that we needed to use telephone interpreters a couple of years ago (I'm NPS). I found a lot depended on the interpreter you got and, on at least one occasion, the interpreter rang off in the middle of the interview, once it became apparent what was being discussed. I didn't have the opportunity to talk to her about it beforehand with the service we were using as we were just put straight through to the interpreter. We're now using face to face interpreters again although this can also be hit and miss. I agree it's discriminatory and doesn't provide the service the Courts have the right to expect of probation in any way, shape or form.

We have used telephone interpreters quite a lot in our office, we have use of a room and conference calling facilities. I have built up a good rapport with some interpreters and between the three of us, we get good communication going, a mix of English and the clients language all mixed in. Because of the use of the telephone you tend to watch non verbal body language more which is interesting. Despite this positive experience, we know that the work we do in this way is limited as much gets lost in translation, but you can only do the best you can I guess. x

Verbal exchange is just 30% of human interaction. You can't do your job.

Women's Refuges Under Threat

This from the Guardian is really bad news and an utter disgrace:-

Housing benefit cap may force 67% of women's refuges to close – report

Two-thirds of women’s refuges in England are facing closure due to a change in the way housing benefit is paid to supported and sheltered housing, according to the national domestic abuse charity Women’s Aid. Government plans to cap housing benefit in the social sector at the same levels paid to private landlords risks destroying the finances of the refuges, which take in women and their children who have been victims of violence at the hands of their partners, the charity says.

A survey of Women’s Aid-affiliated refuges shows that 67% of those operating in England would be forced to close if they are not exempted from the reform, while 87% would be forced to scale down the support they give to families.

Polly Neate, the chief executive of Women’s Aid, said: “Refuges provide specialist support to help women and their children truly recover from domestic abuse, and rebuild their lives with a view to long-term independence. These women and children have been through enough, and they deserve better than services which are continually on the brink of closure.”

The warning comes after plans were revealed in former chancellor George Osborne’s autumn statement last November to cap the amount of rent housing benefit would cover in the social sector to the same level offered to private landlords in the same area. Women’s Aid said in the case of one English refuge this would slash its income from about £300 to just £60 per room per week. Some refuges cover 90% of their costs from housing benefit, the charity said.

A spokeswoman said it would more than reverse £33m worth of government support for the sector, promised after the closure of 17% of refuges since 2010 sparked a major outcry.

Sue Cox, the manager of a women’s refuge in Wiltshire, said the money went towards providing security and specialist support to women and their children, who often faced problems that went well beyond domestic violence. She said: “Antisocial behaviour, drinking, making bad choices of friends and relationships: these things all play out in refuges and work has to be done to ensure that they are able to hold down a tenancy after the refuge.”

Cox said specialists were on hand 24 hours a day in the refuge she managed, and had to be in order to ensure the safety of the women staying there. “If we are only there for an hour a day it is very likely that those families will struggle and those issues will still be an issue,” she said.

The Department for Work and Pensions said a deferral to the reforms until 2018would give women’s refuges a period of grace while officials conduct a review into funding for the supported housing sector.

However, sources within the social housing sector have said the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the review was affecting providers now. Supported housing providers, which also include organisations providing specialised accommodation for elderly and disabled people, were unable to plan for the future without knowing where their money would come from.

According to the National Housing Federation, which represents social housing providers, building work on an estimated 2,400 new specialist homes has already been cancelled as a result and an additional 9,270 homes would not be able to be built if the housing benefit cap went ahead.

Julie Walters, patron of Women’s Aid England, said: “Refuges save lives: it is as simple as that. The government must exempt them from these welfare reforms – or live with the consequences of more women being killed and more families traumatised by domestic abuse. Domestic abuse is a human rights issue, and women and children need the specialist support that refuges provide to reclaim their dignity and strength.”

A DWP spokesman said:

“We fully support the valuable work carried out by domestic abuse refuges and other supported accommodation providers. That is why we deferred this measure for this sector while we conduct a review to ensure it is sustainable in the long term. We will continue working with providers to ensure the right protections are in place and will set out our plans in the autumn.”

--oo00oo--

Fascinating to contrast this with new statistics just released by the CPS and discussed here in the Guardian:-

Violent crimes against women in England and Wales reach record high

The number of prosecutions relating to violence against women and girls in England and Wales reached a record level last year, the director of public prosecutions said, as she warned of the increasing use of social media to threaten and control. Alison Saunders said the ease with which such crimes could be committed online was contributing to the increase in prosecutions. The number of offences against women, including domestic abuse, rape and sexual assaults, rose by almost 10% to 117,568 in 2015-6.

Speaking to the Guardian as the Crown Prosecution Service published its annual report on violence against women and girls, Saunders said: 

“The use of the internet, social media and other forms of technology to humiliate, control and threaten individuals is rising and it is something that we will possibly see increase further. It is undoubtedly easier to commit a lot of these crimes online, people do it without thinking, it is more immediate and it is about the reach and ability to communicate to so many more people.”

New offences such as the recently passed revenge porn laws were also adding to the caseload. Since the new law of disclosing private sexual images without consent was introduced in April 2015, there have been 206 cases of revenge pornography taken to court – with many individuals pleading guilty, according to the DPP.

These include a defendant who sent intimate photos of a woman to members of her family via Facebook and threatened to post further pictures online. He was sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months after he pleaded guilty to an offence of disclosing private sexual images without consent.

Another defendant posted intimate pictures of a woman, who was not aware the photographs had been taken, onto Facebook. He was sentenced to a 12 month community order, fined £110, ordered to pay court costs of £295 and given an indefinite restraining order. However, 206 prosecutions reflect a tiny proportion of complaints of so-called revenge porn. More than 3,700 victims contacted a special helpline set up last year in its first 12 months.

Other areas where online abuse is being used as a tool of harassment and intimidation are within the record numbers of stalking cases being taken to court. In 2015-16 the CPS prosecuted more cases of stalking and harassment – 12,986 – than ever before. Of those, almost 70% involved ongoing domestic abuse, and many perpetrators used the internet or other technology to carry out the offending.

Such is the scale of the offending that special guidance is being issued to prosecutors about the growth of cyber stalking to improve prosecutions. Guidance is also being given to prosecutors on the use of false online profiles and websites which are being set up in the victim’s name, containing false and damaging information intended to harass and intimidate.

But the DPP accepted that historic under-reporting of offences such as stalking, domestic violence, rape and sexual assaults, meant that the number of cases being charged was only a proportion of the offending taking place.

Other key areas relating to online abuse showed sharp increases in the number of cases being brought. These include a 32% rise, to 2,094 cases, of sending grossly offensive or indecent messages under the Malicious Communications Act, and a 20% increase to 2,026 in similar offending under section 127 of the Communications Act. The DPP said these cases related mostly to online abuse, or abuse via text, email and other forms of technology.

Saunders also identified an emerging area of concern as the use of extremely violent pornographic communications, such as women being raped, or the posting of images of women who have suffered severe injuries or are being subjected to sadistic violence. She highlighted increases in prosecutions under new sections of the law for such cases, with 1,737 prosecutions in the past year.

Saunders said everyone from tech companies like Twitter and Facebook, to police and the CPS and wider society, needed to do more to tackle the growing scale of threatening and abusive communications online. “The flip side of that is that the evidence is out there and it is pretty incontrovertible evidence. We have been working with Twitter and Facebook to help us train prosecutors in how to be aware of what evidence is available and talking to them about how they can help us and victims.”

The scale of offences make up nearly 19% of prosecutors’ workload – more than any other single tranche of crime, including terrorism and fraud.

While some, including Maria Miller MP – chair of the House of Commons women and equalities committee – have called for tech companies to take more responsibility for what they publish or face paying for the policing of online crimes, Saunders said she believed tech companies were doing more to take down abusive communications and accounts.

But she added: “I am sure there is much more that tech companies can do to stem the flow. There is far more that all of us can do and that society as a whole can do to tackle this and make it unacceptable. We need to make sure prosecutors and the police are up to date with how people are using social media, what new platforms are emerging, what type of evidence we might gather and how we might use it in prosecutions.”

Rachel Krys, co-director of the End Violence against Women Coalition, said the rise in prosecutions being brought by the CPS was a positive sign.

“We welcome this comprehensive report, the transparency it offers and the CPS’s ongoing attention to violence against women and girls in all its forms. The increase in prosecutions shows that more women are seeking justice. But it is still the case that the majority of women and girls subject to these crimes do not report them to the police, and the specialist services which support them are fighting for survival.”

Pick of the Week 13

30% increase in deaths in prison, 27% increase in self harm & 40% increase in assaults on prison staff. Those are impressive statistics. Well done Chris Grayling. Well done Michael Gove. Well done David Cameron. Between the three of them they've presided over a grotesque achievement in our prisons. Let's hope they are aware of the impact they have had, of the lives lost or irreparably changed as a result.

******
The MOJ statement makes my blood boil. No acknowledgement of the mess Govt created; in fact no actual acknowledgement of the mess per se - just more of the smooth spin, telling us what we know (safe prisons fundamental to proper functioning CJS etc etc). The studied unwillingness to admit anything that has gone before was a mistake is breathtaking in its arrogance. Spin, spin, spin - it's all I hear every day in my CRC and I am sick of it. So if prison officers strike, they'll have my support (as will the junior Drs, actually).

******
I don't feel I should be recalling people to prison anymore, it sounds too dangerous for them. Should we not all refuse to recall people? Napo?

******
How show our support with the strikers? Walk out with them? Every word written on this blog makes me question what my action could be in response to what I read here, and what I experience daily at work. If I hear prisons are dangerous for inmates and staff, I can condemn till I am blue in the face, but what action to adopt as response? 

If I hear and read lots of spin every day at work I must then "counter-spin", must counter by speaking the truth of what is happening, question what I'm told, ask the spinners not to pretend, not to lie, not to insult my intelligence. And I do. B4B in London CRC is not to "help staff". Oasys ISPs within 10 days is not to improve standards, the risk assessments are not to assess risks. IOM is no longer workable in the London CRC as far as probation is concerned, though we are meant to pretend it is. 

When I speak out in team meetings against the spin even the SPO agrees. Accepting lies when we know we are being lied to makes me feel like I no longer know what is true. I have to say what I know to be true. How shall I meet the forthcoming inspection later this month? The effort when there is inspection is to sweep and tidy what is being looked at. And to conceal what you don't want the inspector to see. 

If I am let anywhere near an inspector I will be inviting him/her to understand the context in which I am working. I will point to all the other cases where things have not been done which should have been done. I will show the inspector how I choose time and again to spend time with the service user, applications for housing, advocacy, liaison with health care, rather than breaches, warning letters, recalls, perfectionist sentence planning etc. I am finding I can't spend time making progress on cases and also oil the bureaucracy. I have to choose.

******
When public sector staff strike – the tabloid outrage at the planned doctors' strike, the latest example – they are condemned for putting the taxpayer, patients, etc, at best to inconvenience and at worst to risks of various types. Here is Mears whose profits in the first six months of 2014/5 were £18.7m, an increase of 11%, complaining about being exploited by councils who are simply insisting that care providers pay the minimum wage and travel time. These are also HMRC requirements.

Mears want more money despite signing up to a contract in the first place. It's their fault if they didn't do due diligence and risk assessments. Now, because they can't squeeze money out of some councils, they will simply abandon the contracts. Seems it's too easy for them to walk away, unlike the MoJ with CRCs and the infamous 10-year penalty clauses. It's as the saying goes, they want to privatise all their profits and socialise all their risks.

******
I find the Guardian article pretty sickening. To me it reads, "give us more money, and we'll carry on delivering services in the same inadequate way they're delivered now. There's just not enough profit in the deal we have now to make it worth our while". 

But it's not just those that are the recipients of private sector social care that suffers. It's those that are charged with delivering it at the coal face that suffer too. A quote from a participant of the long running 7up series once said, that the real damage to an individuals life comes from not being able to achieve the things that individual is capable of. He wasn't talking about fulfilling your maximum potential, but just doing the things that you know you are capable of. 

For many that now find themselves in a world of employment dictated by maximisation of profit, the deflating and damaging feeling of not being able to carry out your daily work in a way or to a standard that allows you to achieve your own capability, must have a considerable impact on the life of that individual. There's areas of society that the private sector just don't belong, not just because the quality of service they deliver is piss poor, but because of the damage caused to the individuals employed to deliver those services.

******
Good point. Every carpenter wants to make bespoke furniture, every artist to produce masterpieces etc. Nobody WANTS to do a half arsed job in any area of work. The contracts above, and the new contracts to which Probation staff are working, are all the professional equivalent of flat-pack furniture and, increasingly, there are parts missing so you can never achieve a satisfactory outcome, even when the aspirations are low. 

I left Probation because I no longer wanted to maintain an illusion for the benefit of Sodemall's shareholders. I think many feel the same way. As a result, recruitment and retention remains a problem in all of these areas of work. People don't want to get up every day to go to work at a job that disappoints service users and practitioners alike. They want their 40 hours a week to MATTER.

******
Has there ever been a successful privatisation of a public service in terms of achieving better outcome for the service user? Privatisation equates to crap service, low wage, low morale workforce, fat salaries for top cats, and unearned income for shareholders. Before being elected Camerons favourite slogan was 'broken Britain'... no Britain in 1916 is what broken looks like.

******
We all know that HMPS calls the shots and is behind E3-the ludicrous plan for 60% of POs to be shunted into prisons - this is designed to free up prison offers to walk the wings while all the boring paperwork can be done by probation - shows the disregard that the profession is held in and confirms our second class citizenship credentials.

******
After being put out to grass by Sodexo last year, I wonder if they claimed my pay award in arrears & pocketed it for themselves? Anyone at MoJ/NOMS reading this & feel like checking if the backdated pay awards for those staff kicked into touch were claimed & trousered by Sodexo?

******
Yes, Sodexo trousered the pay rise for many of their employees who were, as you so politely put it - "put out to grass". I am one of many who left but who had worked the entire year April 1st 2015 to 31st March 2016 and theoretically were due the back dated pay rise. However as I, and others, had already signed the paperwork for the voluntary redundancy (another fine euphemism) to accept a sum in "full and final settlement" they would not pay the pay rise, but you can bet they claimed it from MoJ as we were still "on the books" at that time.

Is it fair? - no. Can we do anything about it? - no. All I hope is that Sodexo management sleep well at night knowing they screwed many people not once, but twice over payments due to them. Where were the unions whilst this was happening? - who knows.

******
I'm fed up of hearing people complain they didn't get a fair deal from Sodexo when they agreed to the payment. More fool you for signing for less than was originally promised. You accepted it so suck it up and shut up.

******
No-one above is asking for anything other than their legal entitlements, e.g. the benefit of pension & NI contributions. The issue initially raised seems to have been that Sodexo may well be pocketing monies that was never theirs, i.e. backdated pay for staff - and as such it's yet another cash grabbing exercise that merits exposure & recognition. People who took the Sodexo offer are no doubt well aware of what they agreed to and I'm fairly sure they don't need life coaching from an intolerant bully.

******
Thanks for the understanding comments, but people were made to sign their "full and final" settlement paperwork long before they even knew that the pay rise was going to be paid at the end of March. There was virtually no notice of the pay rise (2 days at the very end of March if memory is correct) and Sodexo pressurised people to sign their documents long before this by enforcing spurious dates for completion - sign by this date or else you won't get any money at all. Solicitor's advice was to take the money on offer rather than risk nothing at all so yes, more fool me, and many others. No-one at all within the CRC or the MoJ or NOMS was prepared to assist and no sign of a union prepared to go into battle. What would you have done?

******
"Government funding to CRCs is dependent on them hitting their targets. Their contract states they have to hit target by February 2017." I would think that some very interesting and creative discussions will be taking place in CRC company board rooms over the next few months, developing ways on how to fit the square peg in the round hole so all targets can be met. 

Whilst it's not surprising that CRCs are in a mess with things like UPW, it would be a bigger surprise if all wasn't hunky dorey by February.  I'm also fascinated by Teresa May's announcement of an audit on race and inequality for those involved with public services. The target group the audit focuses on will mostly be involved with public services that are being "delivered" by private companies. Corporate confidentiality, massaged statistics and creative accounting is sure to give an empirical picture of the true inequalities society hold for many. 

But how a CRC can expect one person to supervise up to 120 people (many with an array of social problems) is just ludicrous. Supervising 120 people that were volunteers that wanted to be there would be a hard slog. But 120 people that would sooner be anywhere else, well that's expecting too much from anyone, and it can't be good for their health either.

******
Well said, and when a good majority of those 120 are unemployed and being worked intensively, ie 4 days per week and need monitoring for attendance, attitude and performance, the job becomes untenable.The opportunity for breach is overwhelming, the constant bombardment of phone calls, excuses and rescheduling becomes a constant nightmare. Bring in to that DV cases/safeguarding concerns and the daily covering for staff shortages/illness/holidays etc. A recipe for disaster. And this is from a CRC that's hitting its targets.

******
Oh you have to laugh at the debacle that is TR as this article so eloquently shows. Private companies are only interested in the bottom line and if they have to fiddle the figures and fail to do the job to protect that bottom line, then that is precisely what they will do. I can only conclude that the Tories are basically very stupid people as anyone with a brain will have foreseen this happening.

******
Sorry people, before we jump over CRCs over UPW and its delivery, let us take a step back, well before TR was even a sparkle in Graylings eye. CS/CP/ECP/UPW has been in Probation since 1972 and has never been taken seriously by Probation... These stories can be told going back to the 70s, 80s, 90s and now. Hands up all those senior POs/PSOs who managed CPROs and sidlined the completion of the CP bit. Have a dig around and you will find thousands of hours that were not completed and were hidden by Chief Officers when reporting back. Even the old IPPF reporting hid them.... The number of AAs recorded on CP throughout the land in the 'good old days' will make your eyes water. Why? because the ethos of probation was rehabilitation and CP is punishment and we know its there but we hold our noses. The problem is now it is out of the hands of NPS, the NOMs managers are all over the CRCs with regards to UPW, but prior to TR, NOMS turned a blind eye. So lets give this some balance....

******

I'm sure this is across the board (NPS and CRC's) and not just in Norwich. CRC's have been told to fudge the figures and make everything acceptable to avoid breaches. 

I remember good old community service run by local probation offices using local community projects. Custody+ was on the verge of being ushered in and projects were supposed to include vocational skills training. Then it all went downhill because of governments obsessed with making every sentence a punishment and probation trusts eager to earn a bit of revenue. 

Now it's called unpaid work/community payback but there really isn't any work or payback involved. Projects are meaningless, demeaning and unsafe, think 10 people picking up litter where there isn't any, or one group winding up balls of wool while the next group unwinds. We all know there are huge problems in arranging, monitoring and enforcing community payback. We used to walk across the office to speak with colleagues, but now everything is done though a poorly staffed call centre that answers if you're lucky. This is what happens when you take a fairly decent public service and sell it to private companies like Sodexo Links that are only interested in reaping profits.

******

Yes, It changed in 2008/9 with Jack Straw, but the central thrust of my point is that these stories from the Norwich Recorder are nothing new and certainly not something that has happened because of TR. I can tell you that there is just as much purposeful work being completed today as there was yesteryear. In maintaining integrity this blog has to have balance, which I know you would agree.

******
Well said. It needs balance and to pin the blame on 'privatisation' as the reason for under performing UPW or in fact probation services is somewhat incredulous. I must have missed the records being borken in performance terms or indeed the low levels of re-offending prior to TR.

******
The only way CP will succeed under the privateers if it is a money earner. Watch this space for innovative projects with service users either being hired out at a competitive rate or shoved out as a group to work with a "Charity" or similar at no cost to to the CRC, except possibly as a taxi service, and officers to monitor attendance.

******
Please read the MoJ/NOMS Delivery of the Unpaid work requirement Manual edition 3.5, boring I know, but it is there for all to read and you can download from MoJ website. It directs all UPW providers that they cannot undertake any work that would replace or take the place of paid work. At best, they can only be cost neutral and must prove that the work they perform is for the good and benefit of the community. Single agency placements are cost neutral. Supervised groups are not. There is no money to be made in UPW, hence the lack of supervisors; they cost money. Part of the contract that CRCs have covers the costs of delivering UPW. If they choose not to employ supervisors, then they end up looking like Sodexo and will have to answer for lack of delivery.

******
Whilst in a Sue Ryder shop in Doncaster I overheard a staff member say to the man who was there on CP (I am from a probation background so I know the jargon) that he would only have to do an hour 'cos it wasn't that busy but she would credit him for other hours!!! Some punishment....

******
Sounds a bit like London CRC. I'm just surprised there aren't any more magistrates in uproar over UPW. But maybe they choose not to be because they don't know what else to do with those up for sentence. Another problem is that there are many "holes" in many of the projects and some are cancelled frequently and regularly, with service users texted and told not to attend. Slow breaching in our case is not about being told not to, but about not finding enough time to do it. What should we prioritise when everything is urgent?

******
Our local courts are starting to ask questions. For UPW breaches they want to know how many of the absences are stand downs. In our area that can be a considerable %. Similarly court not happy to hear of a person up for new DV charges, who has been on the waiting list for over a year for BBR (DV programme). Message comes back via NPS - but do we do anything tangible about it? Nope - have been running with a seriously depleted programmes team since the split - which gets smaller by the month as staff leave. Most DV clients are now waiting well up to and over a year to get on a programme - if at all - by which time, any motivation to participate has long since evaporated.

******
Reading this with interest. I prosecute breaches within the London area and speak to offenders daily at court. The recording of hours worked is always an issue with CRC usually having to accept they have missed some worked along the way. With custody looming, how can they get it wrong? Recently I found out that one breach date was incorrectly submitted,the project had been cancelled as it was the supervisors birthday!

******
Bristol Crown Court Judges going nuts over poor management of UPW, particularly the amount of applications to revoke as unworkable when they should easily be a breach. Have been summonsing beleaguered Case Managers to Court for a public 'roasting'.

******
As far as I am aware, failure to attend on time from Court or late breach is a "Negative", Revoke and resentence is "Neutral" on the PBR. Rather then no breaches at all risking "lates" and any excuse for Revoking. Does that sound about right for the CRC's!

******
Certainly does! We're expected to do a review at about the 6 month point (on a 12 month Order with UPW) and if it looks like the UPW wont be completed, then to take it back as unworkable. (Needless to say, I don't). The courts (quite rightly) are querying this rationale (6 months to go - plenty of time!) What's the issue? Resources pure and simple - a fundamental failure to run enough groups to meet the targets. Again, not a 'recent' issue - the UPW team in my area has become a shadow of its former self post split.