Penal Reforms 2

My attention has been drawn to the following article on the JusticeGap website and which raises some difficult issues regarding any reforms that might be under consideration by the new justice secretary:-  

Resistance from within to Gove’s prison reforms

There is anticipation surrounding Michael Gove’s forthcoming speech at the Tory Party conference, with the Times giving him a front page splash on Saturday. Ahead of the speech Gove has spoken of his desire to sell off old Victorian prisons, and cited the American policy ‘guru’ Arthur Brooks as an influence. As I have noted previously, Brooks is billed as a compassionate conservative, and is on the record as favouring a reduction in the US prison population. Gove has been making all the right noises about following that path, possibly by abolishing short-term prison sentences, but it remains to be seen whether he is brave enough to ride out the inevitable media onslaught that would follow and, importantly, whether he has backing from Number 10 to do so.

What we do know, however, is that Gove will confirm plans to ‘shake up’ prison rehabilitation. The term ‘shake up’ has been seemingly preferred to ‘revolutionise’, that term having been toxified by Chris Grayling’s disastrous ‘rehabilitation revolution’, which essentially involved selling off parts of the probation service to the private sector. Gove’s shake up has the much more noble aim of prisoners bettering themselves through education. It has even been suggested that engagement with education and training could be linked to a prisoner’s entitlement to early release. Whether or not that transpires, in general terms the policy is likely to attract widespread support, as it will appeal as much to social conservatives as it does to prison reformers.

But can it succeed?

The difficulty facing Gove comes not from public opinion, but from those within the system, and indeed from the system itself. At the heart of this lies an addiction: the addiction of ‘the system’, mostly in the embodiment of probation service and prison psychology departments to offending behaviour programmes (OBPs). Under this system, the mantra is not ‘education, education, education’ but rather ‘courses, courses, courses’.

OBPs are courses that aim at reduce risk by teaching offenders about their risk factors and providing them with ‘tools’ to manage them. Courses are identified and put in the prisoner’s formal sentence plan. If he engages, he can be sure to achieve a higher privileges level, and to progress through the system; perhaps even to an open prison. Most notably, for indeterminate sentence prisoners (or ‘lifers’), OBPs hold the key to the gate, with release often being dependent on compliance with programme assessments.

Perhaps the most familiar course is the sex offender treatment programme (SOTP), which is intended to ‘treat’ offenders by addressing aspects of their lives that may be linked to their offending. The mere fact the SOTP is referred to as a ‘treatment’ programme hints at the underlying problem. ‘Treatment’ is a term that many prisoners take exception to, understandably, as it implies that there is something medically wrong with them.

The term provides greater insight, however, into the minds of those within the system, because it implies that the ‘treatment’ works (many OBPs are formally ‘accredited’ by the Ministry of Justice, which carries the same implication). In fact, the reconviction rates for sex offenders are so low generally that it is difficult to gauge the effectiveness of the SOTP. And the problem is not limited to sex offenders. In many cases programmes are rolled out before there has been any realistic opportunity to carry out any assessment of their efficacy. The best that can be said about many OBPs, perhaps, is that they allow offenders to show willing, and that they cannot do any harm (although I’ve heard some psychologists disagree even with that).

But the key issue is not whether OBPs work, but the fact that they are assumed to do so. This is a belief that is ingrained in the system. Probation officers and prison psychologists rely on risk assessment tools that give great weight to OBPs, but very little to educational achievement. I recall one instance of a client completing a psychology degree to be met with lukewarm praise, but overt suspicion that he was trying to outfox them. In any event, the completion of such a degree will count for nothing when it comes to an appearance before the Parole Board or the Category A Review Team. It comes under the umbrella of ‘good behaviour alone is not enough to demonstrate a reduction in risk’, which translates as: ‘do our courses or you’re going nowhere’.

If education is to be given an increased prominence in prisoner rehabilitation, it is unrealistic to expect that the Probation Service, the Parole Board, and the various other agencies involved can be easily weaned off offending behaviour programmes (OBPs). The danger is that resources will be diverted away from them at a time when there remain thousands in the system who are expected to engage with them as a pre-condition of release. HMP Full Sutton, for example, is currently offering the Healthy Sex Programme (a ‘necessary’ programme for those with offence-related sexual interests) to men whose tariffs expired in 2013. In other words, 2 years after they became eligible for release. This is despite a case late last year in which a judge criticised the lack of provision for the HSP and acknowledged that it made release “effectively impossible”.

If education is to be put at the heart of the rehabilitation programme, it cannot – however commendable – be at the expense of OBPs for as long as they remain a pre-requisite to release. It would be a welcome move if the courses mantra were challenged. But if education is to be recognised as an end rather than a means, it is an idea that will face enormous resistance from a system that will be stubbornly resistant to change.

Matthew Stanbury is a barrister at Garden Court North Chambers. He practices in human rights, public law, prison law and crime.

--oo00oo--

The article prompted this comment:-

Offender Behaviour programmes a total load of crock. The research that has been done into them overwhelmingly concludes that they don’t work. The only thing that would work to change someone’s behaviour is to get that individual to a place where they are willing to change. The route to that is as individual as the person the system is trying to change. There is no one size fits all solution. It’s the same with risk assessment, the tools used are simply not fit for purpose and simply do not accurately predict someone’s risk of reoffending etc. You’d probably get more accurate results tossing a coin. Anyone who has been through the system and who has even a modicum of self analysis would be able to tell you what would work and what wouldn’t for them. But the last thing the current system does is actually ask the offender their opinion!

--oo00oo--

I have long had doubts regarding these programmes and have written about the subject on a number of occasions, such as here in 2010:- 

Monday, 20 September 2010

Sex Offenders

To my surprise, some of my most rewarding work has been with sex offenders. They often pose the greatest challenges because as a group they are more likely to be in denial and prone to minimisation in terms of their behaviour. This in turn means they remain a high risk of re-offending and pose a serious threat due to the nature of their offences, which are invariably disturbing and serious. Being responsible for a generic caseload both in and out of prison, I have had my fair share of cases in this category, but for many years felt that the prognosis would always be bleak in terms of trying to make any progress in reducing the risks they posed. I always felt it most unlikely that clients displaying seriously deviant sexual behaviour were going to be amenable to change.

But then some years ago I was offered the chance of joining two other colleagues in running a self-styled Sex Offender Project based on group and individual work. Although we were only allowed about a day a week each, we still managed to set up a 'core' group, a 'maintenance' group and 'adapted' group for the learning disabled, in addition to individual work with very high risk clients. The latter had typically been released from long prison sentences on Parole Licence, specifically in order to take part in the project and resided at probation hostels. Due to the level of risk they posed they had to be escorted for individual sessions. The maintenance group was designed both for those who completed the core group programme and for voluntary attenders when their order had finished. (Yes, just imagine that concept nowadays!) We accepted referrals at all stages, right from PSR and even undertook to write the report for the referring PO. Management just allowed us to get on with it, but paid for a consultant to give advice and support every few months.

The whole project had been running successfully for a number of years, designed in-house by my experienced colleagues, with each aspect tailored to an individuals needs, as was felt appropriate. Imagine that, no manual, no bureaucracy, no monitoring. They were halcyon days indeed and we did amazing work with some of the most scary and damaged people I've ever met. I will always feel priviledged to have had the opportunity of proving beyond doubt that even the most dangerous of offenders can and did respond to some skilfull, patient, understanding counselling. In some cases it took a great deal of time, but there were no time limits, no prescriptive programme and no video or tape recording.

I mention all this because what I am describing is now history and has been replaced with something very different, the authorised and highly prescriptive Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP). This now operates in all probation areas and is available in certain prisons. Run strictly according to a manual, sessions are video-recorded to ensure compliance with the programme and tutors performance is monitored afterwards by so called 'Treatment Managers'. All dreadful nomenclature in my view. Admission to the programme is by no means automatic and for example excludes those in denial or those with learning disabilities.

Now, as I declined to put myself forward for this new initiative, it would not be fair to say too much, beyond perhaps the not-surprising observation that I remain sceptical that the 'one size fits all' approach is right. Clearly it would not have benefited the vast majority of our clientele. So, in a sense, I've come full circle in feeling that once more there is a group of sex offenders for whom the prognosis remains very poor indeed. Progress?

Another Press Release

In order to try and fill an obvious vacuum, Joanna Hughes and myself have cooked up another press release and I reproduce it below. It's worth noting that an hour's work got a response from Sky News within minutes and a telephone interview by Joanna. Sadly she is unable to make the journey to London today for a live studio interview and clearly there are no camera vans available. Maybe Napo can find someone?

"With news that two more life term prisoners have absconded from open prison at the weekend by not returning from day release, Justice Minister Chris Grayling finds himself desperately trying to reassure the public by imposing yet more draconian knee-jerk measures.

The minister has today announced not just a tightening-up of all releases on temporary licence, but an end to so-called 'Town Visits' within the next month and the blanket imposition of electronic tagging. This will just be more money for private firms as a tag on the foot is not going to stop a prisoner determined to escape. However, as all experienced probation officers know, 'Town Visits' and release on temporary licence are an essential part of the successful reintegration back into mainstream society by long term prisoners, and the rarity of such incidents, and general success of such schemes in aiding rehabilitation, are testament to the expert assessments made by trained and experienced probation officers. This is an incidental failure within a genuinely successful system.

Further It is likely that the situation for public and prisoners will be adversely affected by Grayling's plans, which constitute short term political expediency at the expense of long term public safety and are opposed by probation officers making difficult risk assessments. However, since appointment, Chris Grayling has demonstrated nothing but disdain for the Probation Service which will cease to exist in its present form from the end of this month,. Against all expert opinion he intends to privatise the bulk of the service and hand over most work to inexperienced private contractors and corporations whose motive is profit.

Joanna Hughes is an experienced probation officer who is taking a principled stand against Chris Grayling's dangerous and ill-thought-out proposals and is resigning in protest. She is extremely happy to explain her decision and exactly why the public should be concerned at the virtual collapse of a vital public service. She can be contacted here:"

Some Observations 20

With so much happening on the TR omnishambles front, it's been ages since we've had a general roundup of other random stuff, so here's a few bits and bobs that individually I don't feel able to spin out into a post of their own. It's becoming all too apparent that we're well into pre-electioneering mode now and it was this comment that I thought summed it up nicely:-

The constant flood of crime-related policy announcements is the result of Lynton Crosby, the Tories' election "guru", telling them not to put messages out about anything other than crime, benefits or the economy - the only areas they think they can win. The next 16 months in politics are going to be really ugly.

And sure enough on Saturday this piece appeared in 'Converse' the prisoners newspaper reporting yet another Grayling initiative designed to appeal to voters and make sure the prison numbers are maintained:-

Criminals who go on the run to avoid being sent back behind bars could face an extra two years in prison under new measures announced by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. The new measure is aimed at punishing criminals who have been released from prison but abscond to avoid being recalled for breaching their licence conditions.

Under current laws, once they are caught they can be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentence, but there is no additional penalty for going on the run.
The introduction of a new offence of being unlawfully at large following recall to custody will mean they could face additional punishment when they are recaptured and hauled before the courts.

The Ministry of Justice said around 800 criminals a year could face prosecution under the new offence which will carry a maximum two-year sentence. It is already a criminal offence to escape from jail, to not surrender to custody when on bail and to not return from release on temporary licence, and this change will close a loophole in the law when offenders remain unlawfully at large following recall to custody.

Mr Grayling said: “It is unacceptable that criminals who disregard the law and attempt to evade the authorities are able to do so with impunity. I am today sending a clear message to those people that if you try to avoid serving your sentence you will face the consequences when you are caught. I think the hard-working taxpayers of this country would expect nothing less than tough punishment for offenders who try and beat the system. From my first day in this job I have been clear that punishment must mean punishment. We’re on the side of people who work hard and want to get on and my message is simple – if you break the law, you will not get away with it.”

Actually I notice that the prison theme cropped up yesterday with these exchanges concerning ROTL and IEP, the new Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme introduced by one Chris Grayling:- 

Does anyone have any information on the changes to the HMP IEPS system. I supervise someone who regularly is out on ROTL (release on temporary licence) for the purposes of resettling in the community: he's a lifer. He told me yesterday, that changes to the IEP system at his establishment effectively means that about two thirds of those who currently are Enhanced, no longer met the criteria and are being reassigned as Standard; therefore losing a significant number of privileges. I also heard from a prison officer that in future, applications for rotl for the purposes of maintaining family ties, will not be granted, unless some other good reason is also given. Anyone know what's going on?

It's basically all up in the air. Receptions no longer start at standard but on the basic regime. To advance along the new IEP system inmates have to actively demonstrate more then compliance and good behaviour. To my knowledge there is no national standard or all encompassing directive, which creates a large lack of continuity across the prison estate. You may remember that a major factor identified from the investigations into the Strangeways riots conducted by Lord Woolfe was just that lack of continuity found from prison to prison. It's unfortunate for your client, but you now have to 'earn' ROTL, rather than it being a natural progression.

I feel the new system is flawed and unfair, particularly with regard to lifers. As lifers are expected to complete a number of ROTLs prior to parole hearings, the new system may have a negative impact on the lifer. I would suggest (if I may) that any PO who experiences difficulties getting lifers out on ROTL, to notify the parole board, and complain to lifer management. After all ROTL forms an integral aspect of risk assessment for a lifer, it should not just be seen as an 'earned' privilege.

There's a new PSI governing IEP you can get it off MoJ website. Prisoners have to be actively engaged in rehabilitative process and in employment that is of benefit to others (peer partners, listeners ted) to earn their enhanced these days. Will prevent deniers refusing to do SOTP getting enhanced for example.

I wouldn't worry about the ROTL issue for lifers it will mainly affect cat C prisoners trying it on rather than traditional family ties ROTL for cat Ds or lifers.

As was highlighted, there's a very interesting letter from a prisoner in the January edition of Inside Time:-

Prison reform or destruction - Star Letter of the Month

From Foreign Perspective - HMP Oakwood 

I have been a mandatory lifer since February 1995 and I have witnessed many changes in the prison system. One of the most profound changes I have seen is how the 'us and them' divide between prison staff and prisoners had almost disappeared. Prisoners were engaging in offence related courses and education at a scale unseen in the past.

At last, improvement on your education levels was considered as having reduced your risk. Alas, Ken Clarke and his progressive thinking was not appreciated. On the contrary, he had been accused of having too soft a touch as Secretary of State for Justice.In his place was put 'punitive' Chris Grayling who does not seem to have a clue about the inner workings of the prison system.

Against the advice of all senior and experienced governors and heads, he brought in a new system which brought back the 'us and them' ethos overnight. All the hard work of his predecessors and the complacency of prisoners he damaged by literally punishing good behaviour! What else can you call it when a prisoner behaved exceptionally well over an extended period of time by doing everything expected of him and more, only to be told you have behaved well and done nothing wrong but now we are reviewing you using harsher criteria and we are taking your belongings (which you have worked hard to buy) off you anyway because Chris Grayling says we have to. 

For all of those who were compliant and followed the rules in recent years the 1st of November 2013 will be remembered as the day on which Chris Grayling destroyed 30 years of progress in the British prison system. How sad.

By the way, there was a BBC Radio 4 programme yesterday The Report on the recent disturbance at HMP Oakwood with evidence that it was in fact a riot. It can be listened to on i-player.  

It used to be said that the Church of England was the Tory party at prayer. That's long gone since Margaret Thatcher got irritated when the Faith in the City report highlighted the disparity between the rich and the poor. It's fascinating to see though how the tensions are re-surfacing as we head up to the General Election and as reported in this story just before Christmas about Iain Duncan Smith refusing to meet the Trussell Trust to discuss food banks:- 

Iain Duncan Smith, the embattled work and pensions secretary, is refusing to meet leaders of the rapidly expanding Christian charity that has set up more than 400 food banks across the UK, claiming it is "scaremongering" and has a clear political agenda. The news will fuel a growing row over food poverty, as church leaders and the Labour party accuse ministers of failing to recognise the growing crisis hitting hundreds of thousands of families whose incomes are being squeezed, while food prices soar.

Responding to requests for a meeting from Chris Mould, chairman of the Trussell Trust, which has provided food supplies to more than 500,000 people since April, Duncan Smith has dismissed claims that the problems are linked to welfare reforms and attacked the charity for publicity-seeking. In his most recent response on 22 November, Duncan Smith made clear that he had received enough letters from the trust and referred Mould to his previous answers. His deputy, Lord Freud, the minister for welfare reform, also explicitly rejected an invitation for talks on 30 August, telling the trust's chairman that he was "unable to take up your offer of a meeting".

In 2010, the Trussell Trust provided food to around 41,000 people, but in the past eight months the number has increased to more than half a million, a third of whom are children.

Mould first wrote to Duncan Smith in June, saying that many of the problems people were facing could be tracked back to changes in their benefits, and to delays in the payment of them.

Duncan Smith began his reply by criticising the "political messaging of your organisation", which "despite claiming to be nonpartisan" had "repeatedly sought to link the growth in your network to welfare reform". He said his department's record in processing benefit claims had improved and should do so further with the introduction of universal credit.

He rejected any suggestion that the government was to blame. "I strongly refute this claim and would politely ask you to stop scaremongering in this way. I understand that a feature of your business model must require you to continuously achieve publicity, but I'm concerned that you are now seeking to do this by making your political opposition to welfare reform overtly clear."

The standoff will further anger church leaders who were incensed by reports last week that the government had turned down a potential pot of £22m of EU funding for food banks, on the grounds that the UK did not want to be told by Brussels how to spend money for European structural funds.

Unfortunately it looks like we could be getting into that game where each main party tries to demonstrate how tough they are on benefits as well as crime. Here's rising Labour star Rachel Reeves MP in the Daily Telegraph of all places on a bright new idea that'll make life yet more tough for many of our clients:-

Benefits claimants will be forced to sit a test showing they can read, write and do maths in order to claim benefits, Labour will announce, prompting a furious row with the Conservatives over welfare.

People receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance would be forced to sit a basic skills test within six weeks of signing on or face being stripped of their benefits, Labour will say, in a move designed to challenge the Tory’s popular welfare policies. Anyone who does not show basic competency in literacy, numeracy and IT will be sent on training programmes. Labour believes that around 300,000 people could be sent on courses every year. If they refuse, they will be denied welfare.

Rachel Reeves will announce the curbs in her first major policy speech since being promoted to shadow work and pensions secretary. It is an attempt to end criticisms that Labour is “the party of welfare” and counter David Cameron’s promise to make people on benefits “earn or learn” or face losing their handouts. The Labour move to toughen its image on welfare will concern senior Conservative ministers. The Conservatives enjoy significant poll leads over their Labour rivals on the issue and believe it could deliver them victory in next year’s election.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, will on Monday insist that tough Conservative policies on welfare and immigration are getting hundreds of thousands of British people into jobs. In an attempt to overshadow Miss Reeves’ speech, the Conservatives released statistics designed to remind voters about Labour’s past profligacy on welfare. Between 2005 and 2010, the number of British people in a job dropped by 413,000, while the number of foreigners in employment soared by 736,000, according to the statistics released by Mr Duncan Smith’s department.

Finally, here's a report of an on-going case that has a particularly pertinent portend of possible trouble ahead when all those innovative 'best in the business' contractors Chris Grayling is so keen on get involved with probation work:-

A PROBATION officer was "shocked " when told one of the men accused of murdering a Southampton dad started a relationship with the woman mentoring him on release from prison, a court heard. Terry Wilson was appointed as probation officer for Pierre Lewis - one of three men alleged to have shot dead Jahmel Jones - after he was released from prison on licence in 2012.

Giving evidence at Winchester Crown Court, Mr Wilson, a probation officer for the London Probation Trust, said Lewis revealed he was having a relationship with Rachel Kenehan, who acted as his support mentor while he was in Portland prison and upon his release. Lewis, 20, is in the dock along with friends Jemmikai Orlebar-Forbes and Isaac Boateng who are accused of carrying out the murder in a joint enterprise on April 20 last year.

Kenehan, 35, is charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, assisting an offender, and perverting the course of justice. Mr Wilson told the court how he learned of the relationship during an arranged meeting in January last year. He said: "I was shocked and disappointed. She (Kenehan) is a mentor and carrying out an important professional function in terms of supervision. She was viewed as an important part of the support system and that compromised that."

The court heard how Mr Wilson phoned Kenehan that day to discuss the relationship and arranged a meeting to be held between her and her manager in which she told them it had been going on “a while”.

Dirty Tricks at the MoJ?

An interesting story has been brought to my attention concerning the Devon and Cornwall Probation Trust. On Tuesday this week the BBC news website carried an item headed Devon and Cornwall Probation Trust : 'improvements needed' :-

Concerns have been raised about the way offenders are managed in Devon and Cornwall following an inspection of the Probation Trust.

A report found the trust had worked well to protect the public and prevent reoffending but said further improvements needed to be made in assessment and planning.

It also said there was a lack of help for offenders with alcohol problems.

The inspection aims to assess if court sentences are delivered effectively.

It was the third of six inspections in which inspectors focus on the quality of work with violent offenders and whether this protects the public, reduces the likelihood of reoffending and provides a high quality service to courts and victims.

'Insufficient quality'Liz Calderbank, chief inspector of probation, said the Devon and Cornwall Probation Trust - which works with about 4,000 offenders each year - had worked "effectively" with other agencies in delivering offending-related work.

But she added: "There remains a need for further improvements in risk of harm assessments and planning."

Inspectors said they were concerned to find that:

• The quality of initial sentence plans was not always sufficient - some were not sufficiently informed by the assessments about an individual's likelihood of reoffending or risk of harm
• Alcohol misuse was usually recognised in the initial assessment, but interventions to address the problem should have been provided in more cases
• An initial risk of serious harm screening was missing or not completed sufficiently well in a number of cases
• Too many risk management plans were either not completed or were completed to an insufficient quality

Now the article goes on to highlight some positive aspects to the report, but by the time the average member of the public got to that bit, they could be forgiven for thinking that this was a pretty damning report by the Inspectorate. But the official DCPT website paints a rather different picture:-  

An Inspection of Adult Offending work in Devon and Cornwall, by Her Majesty's' Inspectorate of Probation, cites significant improvements in the work of Devon and Cornwall Probation Trust. The report highlights that public protection and reoffending work has improved significantly, with victim contact work done well and significant management of the risk of harm to victims and the safety of children promoted.

Said Rob Menary, Chief Executive of Devon and  Cornwall Probation Trust:-

"We are on a journey to continually improve quality, and this report reinforces the continuing progress that we are making. Most importantly, we have continued to reduce levels of reoffending, making Devon and Cornwall one of the safest places to live. We are not complacent, there are still a number of things we need to do better, and positive action to tackle inconsistency of practice in certain areas is a focus for our continuing improvement work.

Rob continues:-

This inspection focused on our management of violent offenders. In nearly nine out of ten cases, alcohol was a significant contributory factor and we are pleased that the inspectors commented on our work and the range of services for this group - many delivered in partnership with other community organisations. Our work with Children's Services and Safeguarding Boards to raise awareness of child protection / need issues, was positively commented on, and we were pleased that the confidence of staff to exchange data and work with social care cases was highlighted as a significant improvement. Public protection and reducing reoffending remain our key priorities. I would like to personally thank my staff for the hard work they are doing in these challenging times, and assure the public that we continue to do everything we can, along with others such as the police, to help keep them safe.

Many of these HMI reports are pretty much of a muchness, including this one 'great work has been done - but room for a few improvements', so the question we need to ask is, who was responsible for the briefing and spin that some hapless BBC hack was encouraged to put on this non-story?

Of course we have another recent example of negative spin on a story about probation - last weeks brouhaha about lifers being released without proper assessments. A careful examination of the joint HMI report shows that it was almost entirely about Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) where prison officers acting as 'offender supervisors' were primarily responsible for completing poor OASys assessments, and Prison Governors making the decisions. 

So again we have to ask, who was responsible for the comprehensive briefings to the media that turned it into negative copy for the probation service, rather than the prison service? I sense a dirty tricks campaign at the MoJ. 

Of course it could be said that the whole bloody Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambles is a piece of dishonest spin because the justification always given is the high level of reoffending by short-term offenders - the under 12 month custody clients for whom probation has no statutory responsibility or funding for. 

Am I naive, or just paranoid?   

HMI's - A Word in your Ear

We've been moaning for weeks that the media never mentions probation, but yesterday we were all over TV, radio, press and the internet. Sadly not about privatisation, despite Ian Lawrence valiantly trying to steer John Humphrys on the BBC Today programme around to the topic, but a negative report by Liz Calderbank and Nick Hardwick, respective HMI's for Probation and Prisons. 

Now if I were cynical I'd say the timing was suspect to say the least, providing as it does lots of negative publicity about the emotive topic of 'lifers' being released either on a temporary basis (ROTL) or Parole Licence, but with inadequate risk assessments having been carried out. 

This is a big topic, but I want to try and keep it simple. First a bit of history.

1) Lifers used to be a relatively small part of the total prison population, but Tony Blair's government ensured that the number rocketed by introducing the dreaded IPP sentence. The Indeterminate Public Protection sentence is very similar to a Life Sentence, but usually with a much shorter tariff, ie the minimum period that must be served for punishment purposes and before the parole process can start.

2) Lifers used to be treated 'specially' - prison Governors chaired sentence planning meetings and typically home probation officers were 'paired' and kept their lifers for many years, even if moving office or role.

3) Any application for release would involve a visit and report by the so-called 'Independent' - a member of the Parole Board, but not part of the decision-making panel.

4) Resources were always available to ensure that each lifer was visited in prison at least once a year, no matter how far-flung the prison was.

5) Every prison had sufficient seconded Probation Officers to enable every lifer to be seen and assessed in prison, and hence by a suitably-qualified person

6) OASys had not been invented and assessments were written as real documents that could be read and understood. 

Nowadays some prison officers are designated 'offender supervisers', they complete OASys assessments and chair sentence planning meetings. There's no money for probation officers to visit regularly and you are expected to interview by video link. OASys is so crap, naturally ways are found to avoid the bloody thing at all cost. 'Ownership' of the OASys changes regularly between prison and community and when extra text is added by other authors the result is akin to a dogs breakfast. This report is a complete indictment of the uselessness of OASys, and yet both authors, the MoJ, Noms, PA, PCA et al all pretend it's a vital and useful offender assessment tool. No it isn't!    

If it wasn't so serious it would be quite funny how much space is taken up in the report discussing OASys and how there is confusion as to who's job it is to fill it in, how poorly it's filled in, whether it's filled in and how often it's filled in. I want to let both HMI's into a secret about OASys that might just help them understand why there's a problem OASys is a complete and utter pile of shite and whoever was responsible for commissioning it and designing it should be compelled to complete one every day until they beg for mercy!

One of the most startling findings from this inspection concerned arrangements for the completion of OASys assessments on individual prisoners while in custody. We were surprised to find that so many different models had evolved and that staff had varying degrees of understanding about what was required, of whom, and when. Phase III of the offender management model, launched in January 2008, sought to clarify arrangements for the offender management of indeterminate sentence prisoners. Under this phase of the offender management model, the community based offender manager was clearly at the heart of the assessment, sentence planning, supervision and release arrangements for those given an IPP sentence. For life sentence prisoners, by contrast, the model dictated that prison service designated staff, known as offender supervisors, would complete prison based offender management tasks, with probation staff providing the community element, including supervision post-release. This distinction between the arrangements for managing life sentence prisoners and IPP prisoners seemed illogical to us and may have contributed to the confusion we found.

Yes remember that? 'Seamless end-to-end offender management'? The same daft people who dreamt up OASys felt that the home probation officer was the ideal person to be in charge of the prisoner's progression through their sentence and chair sentence planning meetings. Oh, and preferably chair it by video link. It was a totally fanciful idea and hence has been ignored by both prison and probation. The same people are of course the architects currently trying to make the Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambles work. 

Without hesitation I can categorically say that I have never come across anything invented by man that wastes more time, for absolutely no purpose. Believe me, filling in a complete OASys induces an irresistible desire to beat ones head upon the desk, cry uncontrollably and either reach for valium or huge quantities of alcohol. Will someone, somewhere please rid us of this nightmare and let us get on with the bloody job?!

Now at this point no doubt some people will be thinking it can't be that bad, and to them I'd say this. No contractor thinking of getting involved in the Transforming Rehabilitation omnishambes will have anything to do with it - they've got a business to run and it will be lean and mean with no room for timewasting useless stuff like OASys. No one ever reads a complete OASys from beginning to end, unless they are an HMI or investigating officer on an SFO enquiry. Not even the Parole Board feel its any use. When I was at an Oral Hearing recently, the Chair pushed the file to one side and simply said 'now, what do you really think?'     

Risk assessment is not a science, but a skill that can be honed by well-trained and experienced staff. It can never guarantee 100% accuracy because a lot of our clients are accomplished liars and manipulators well-versed in the art of obstruction or obfuscation. We try to do our best and are successful in the vast majority of cases, but SFO's will occur. Lets not blame the PO, but the perpetrator instead and recognise that good assessments require adequate resources.               

Her Majesty's Prison Aylesbury

I thought I'd pen a few words about the first of a two-part ITV1 documentary filmed last year in Aylesbury Young Offender Institution. Just like the similar documentary on Strangeways, there was plenty of action and just that nagging doubt some of it was put on specially for the cameras. 

I sometimes wonder why the MoJ agrees to allow film crews into prisons, after all it's quite likely to be pretty unpleasant. Judging by some comments reported on twitter and reported here, the public have been shocked and clearly have no idea what sort of thing goes on inside some prisons and YOI's. For that reason alone it's got to be worth it. Maybe the MoJ feel the public will be sympathetic, but if this is typical, the view is 'they're animals - keep 'em locked up and throw the key away.' Maybe it's designed to scare-off would-be miscreants. I don't know. 

Despite one Young Prisoner being taken hostage, I didn't find this programme as shocking as Strangeways as we were spared the self-inflicted razor-slashing, but I'm sure it goes on. What is clear is that there are a lot of very damaged young men in custody and Aylesbury only holds the long-termers, a staggering one fifth doing life or other indeterminate sentences. Some will indeed never get out if they don't receive specialist treatment.  

Of course what such long-termers really need is stability and counselling, and neither is available here. As YP's they will all be shipped out into the main adult prison estate at age 21, so they're just 'marking time' and getting some amusement from indulging in some territorially-based gratuitous violence in the meantime. Saying 'hello' to each other as one female prison officer put it.

In all my dealings with prisons of various sorts I think I'm usually most disappointed with the mental health and psychological services. As with Strangeways, this programme confirmed this view. Some of these guys, if not suffering from quite serious mental illness, have certainly been psychologically damaged and require skilled counselling. Experience tells me that this will almost certainly not be available. Psychologists, mostly trainees it has to be said, will write assessments and reports, but will not deliver any therapy. A big mistake in my view. 

As usual there is often a woeful failure to understand the difference between the appropriate remit of a psychiatrist, as opposed to that of a psychologist. Many of these lads would fall into the legitimate remit of the latter, rather than the former. The difference between mental illness and abnormal thinking is significant and requires different responses. If only more people in the criminal justice system understood this, it would reap huge benefits for those incarcerated, and us all further down the line.

PS 26/02/2013

The second part of this documentary has now aired, showing yet more disturbing scenes including incidents of self harm noticeably absent from the first episode. Much of the YP's behaviour in the second part might be termed as childish attempts to manipulate or gain attention, such as the three-day hunger strike, but I think there was plenty to confirm that many of these emotionally-damaged young men require skilled counselling.

The inevitable move of the 'hard men' long-termers' to adult establishments at age 21 may well have some beneficial effect as they will have even harder men to deal with. I don't think they will be able to cause as much disruption or damage to key prison infrastructure such as pool tables, and this in itself might provide a valuable lesson in progressing to greater maturity.

The main message to me though in this episode was the importance of each inmate having an outside home probation officer, not connected to the prison, and hence able to mediate, advocate and advise on their behalf. I've done this many times and been able to help prisoners progress when they've become locked into a cycle of destructive and uncooperative behaviour whilst in custody. Probation has an absolutely key role to play in the sort of situations we saw played out at HM Prison Aylesbury.     

Titan Returns!

The new darling of the Tory party Chris Grayling is clearly intent on creating the impression that he's a man of action by announcing the largest prison closure programme just days after signing Probation's death warrant. 

You will recall that the previous Justice Secretary Ken Clarke started the ball rolling with some modest closures such as HMP Lancaster, at the time the oldest prison still in operation by far. Of the new batch set for closure, HMP Shrewsbury and HMP Shepton Mallet were also in Ken's sights but in the end had a stay of execution. Of course as well as being old they are also 'listed' as being of considerable historic importance and finding suitable alternative uses will pose quite a problem, especially during the present economic climate. This is especially true of Shepton Mallet whose high walls absolutely dominate the town centre and it's to be hoped will not blight it for too long. 

In addition to the significant job losses that will no doubt heavily affect a small community like Shepton Mallet, there is the no small matter of what to do with the current inmates, all of whom are life sentence prisoners and many have been settled in the place for years. It probably won't generate much sympathy, but I know from experience that some very long term prisoners will become institutionalised to the point where release becomes almost impossible and I think Shepton is currently home to quite a number of these. Closure is going to be very unsettling indeed for some.

Other prisons set to close are HMP's Kingston, Bullwood Hall, Canterbury and Gloucester with partial closures of Camp Hill, Chelmsford and Hull. This removes 2614 places from the nominal estate, but there are plans for new wings or 'house blocks' at HMP's Parc, Peterborough, the Mount and Thameside totalling 1260 beds. However, in a move designed I suspect to put the wind up the Prison Officers Association and presage further closures, the government have also raised the spectre of a 'super' prison again holding about 2,000 inmates. 

Of course this idea was roundly condemned when Jack Straw and the previous Labour Administration proposed three mighty 'Titan' prisons of up to 2,500 inmates each, no doubt to be run by a private contractor. This might just be a bit of kite-flying by Chris Grayling in order to test reaction again and irritate the POA, but the choice of possible locations is intriguing to say the least. Only Wales, north west England or London are suggested as possible lucky recipients. In the end it's all about saving money and clearly there are significant economies of scale to be had in large prisons, whatever Chris Graying says about better training facilities etc etc - all a distraction from this key driver. 

Interestingly, I note that HMP Dartmoor survives once more and I can only assume that the landlord, HRH The Prince of Wales in the form of the Duchy of Cornwall, is driving a particularly hard bargain before agreeing to accept return of the gatehouse keys!            

Life in Gartree

Last nights Channel 4 documentary 'Lifers' in HMP Gartree was fascinating for a whole host of reasons, not least the ability of the film maker to tackle such a vast and important topic without reference to probation once. Any unsuspecting member of the public could be excused for believing that probation has no role at all in the ongoing management of people serving life sentences in prison and that as one inmate put it 'it's psychology that pulls all the strings - if you don't agree with 'em you don't get out'. What bollocks.

Every single person serving a life sentence, even the man identified as having a 'whole life term' and thus will die behind bars, has an allocated external or home probation officer throughout their entire sentence. This arrangement continues following release and until such time as the Parole Board deem supervision is no longer required in relation to their Life Licence. In addition, every prison including and especially a lifer centre like Gartree has a probation department, but they were conspicuously absent in this film. 

What we did see was a glimpse of the psychology department which typically within HM Prison Service nowadays is almost exclusively staffed by young female trainees. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but I do often wonder why there never seem to be any young men, and what the hell do these trainees do when they qualify? They never seem to be taken on by HMP, no doubt because once they qualify they become far too expensive. In short I have had concerns about the experience and quality of psychology input within the prison system in recent years, relying heavily as it does on a seemingly endless supply of trainees. Dealing with such dangerous and often severely damaged individuals surely requires some very senior and well qualified staff?

To be blunt this brings me onto the notion, given weight by this film, that it's the psychology department that basically decides if people are fit to progress towards release or not. In reality it's the F75 Parole Reports prepared both by internal and external probation officers that carry significant weight with the Parole Board. You wouldn't know it, but almost certainly the external probation officer would have been present at the Oral Hearing and would have given evidence directly to the three Parole Board panel members and in support of their written report. 

It should be borne in mind that prisoners move around the prison system fairly frequently and thus the home probation officers involvement in a case will often represent a degree of continuity and thus expertise. The Lifer File gets ever bigger with the passage of time and accumulates numerous reports from each Establishment, but it's often only the home PO that can spot changes in an inmates demeanour, attitude or story that will assist in the making of accurate and fair assessments. In my experience this involvement over time makes the home PO the 'expert' on a case and thus able to argue effectively at sentence planning meetings from a position of authority. From an inmates point of view, this can either be viewed positively or negatively of course.

Which brings me on finally to the interesting choice of inmates who made up the bulk of the footage. Although eminently 'recognisable' to me in their various ways, they are far from being typical and I think it's important that viewers know this. In all my career I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of lifers that have displayed similar degrees of candour and openness in relation to their index offence. Much more common is denial, minimisation, justification, obfuscation and just plain cussedness. I guarantee a brief conversation with any of the officers at Gartree will confirm this. There will be whole wings of 'innocent' men and tackling this degree of denial is extremely wearing I can tell you. Sadly we never got a glimpse of that, far more 'normal 'side of things, from this film. But then 50 minutes to cover such a huge subject was a bit ambitious.