Report Highlights Structural Failings

Press release issued today:-

Independent serious further offence review of Damien Bendall

Background

Damien Bendall murdered Terri Harris (aged 35), John Paul Bennett (aged 13), Lacey Bennett (aged 11) and Connie Gent (aged 11). He also raped Lacey. These crimes took place in September 2021 in Killamarsh, Derbyshire. He pleaded guilty in December 2022 and was later sentenced to a whole-life prison term.

Bendall was on probation when he committed these offences. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice the Rt Hon Dominic Raab asked HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell to conduct an independent review into this case. This review was completed in January 2022 and can now be published following the completion of the criminal proceedings.

Statement

HM Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell has made this statement:

“This was a deeply concerning case. The Probation Service’s assessment and management of Bendall at every stage, from initial court report to his supervision in the community, was of an unacceptable standard and fell far below what was required.

“Bendall had previously committed violent offences. His records show a former partner had made allegations of domestic abuse against him and a police child sexual exploitation unit had made enquiries about him with the Probation Service. Probation practitioners should take account of this sort of intelligence when assessing potential risks of serious harm. But this does not appear to have happened in this case.

“Bendall committed arson in May 2020. A member of the probation service’s court team interviewed him in June 2021 in order to prepare a report with sentencing options for the judge. The report author noted Bendall was suitable for a curfew requirement at the home of Terri Harris. They came to this wholly inappropriate conclusion without speaking to Ms Harris, visiting the property, conducting domestic abuse enquiries, or taking into account past domestic abuse claims.

“The court report author assessed Bendall as posing a medium risk of serious harm to the public and posing a low risk of serious harm to partners and children. We do not agree with this risk assessment; they under-estimated the risks Bendall posed and this had serious consequences.

“Probation managers and practitioners took the risk assessment from the court report as a given, and missed several opportunities to scrutinise and change it. If Bendall had been assessed as presenting a higher risk of serious harm – which would have been appropriate – it is unlikely a curfew order would have been deemed suitable and he would have been assigned to more experienced and confident probation officers.

“Instead, Bendall’s case was transferred to the East Midlands in the summer of 2021, and he was supervised by insufficiently qualified and experienced probation practitioners. The safety of Ms Harris and her children was not given due consideration. This was especially troubling as Bendall had started drinking alcohol and smoking cannabis again, which is likely to have increased the risk of serious harm.

“Probation services must strike the right balance between protecting the public and supporting individuals to move towards crime-free lives. Sadly, in this case, the balance was out of kilter.

“In January 2022, we published a separate thematic report on electronically monitored curfews which questioned why domestic abuse and child safeguarding enquiries are not mandatory before court ordered curfews. The Bendall case demonstrates clearly why these checks are so important.

“This review also highlights common issues that we have found in previous and recent inspections of probation services: the lack of qualified probation officers and managers with too many responsibilities to provide effective oversight for less experienced staff.

“The Probation Service must tackle these workforce issues. Probation practitioners must have the right knowledge, skills and experience to manage their assigned cases – and appropriate support and oversight from managers.

“We want to see probation practitioners and managers scrutinising case files and past criminal behaviour properly and developing a deeper understanding of the people they manage. We did not see enough ‘professional curiosity’ in this case – Bendall’s words and assertions were often taken at face value. Probation practitioners should be interrogating and verifying claims to build up a complete picture of the individual.

“As a result of this review, I made 17 recommendations for improvement to the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. They have accepted all these recommendations and responded with an action plan for implementing them. While this is welcome, over the past year in our local and national probation inspections we have continued to raise deep concerns about the quality of probation practice we find more generally in relation to the assessment and management of risk of harm. This is a subject I have raised repeated concerns about since becoming Chief Inspector. It is vital that this time lessons are learnt from this awful case.

--oo00oo--

Extracts from the full report:-

1. Foreword 

In September 2021, Damien Bendall was charged with the murders of Connie Gent (aged 11), Lacey Bennett (aged 11), John Paul Bennett (aged 13) and Terri Harris (aged 35), who was pregnant, and with raping Lacey. These shocking crimes have devastated families, friends, and the local community in Killamarsh, Derbyshire and beyond. In December 2022, the courts imposed a whole life sentence. 

Damien Bendall was on probation when he committed these crimes. The Probation Service typically conducts a Serious Further Offence (SFO) review when an individual on probation commits a serious violent or sexual offence. However, in this case, the Secretary of State for Justice asked me, as Chief Inspector of Probation, to conduct an independent SFO review into the Probation Service’s management of Damien Bendall. 

This report sets out the findings of that independent review. My inspectors found that the Probation Service’s assessment and management of Mr Bendall at each stage of the process from initial court report to his supervision in the community were of an unacceptable standard and fell far below what was required. 

Vital information about the serious risks posed by Mr Bendall to those he lived with, and the public, was not included in the Probation Service’s report and recommendations to the judge when he was sentenced for an arson offence in June 2021. As a result, he was sentenced to an entirely inappropriate curfew condition to reside with Ms Harris and her children. This was then compounded by a failure to allocate his case to an appropriately experienced and trained probation officer who could have managed him at the higher risk of serious harm level his past history certainly warranted. Several opportunities to correct these mistakes and amend his risk of harm classification and reallocate Mr Bendall’s supervision to an appropriate practitioner were missed in the period from June to September 2021. 

Inspectors found successive probation practitioners missed opportunities to ensure vital information known about Damien Bendall was included in assessments and plans to manage and address the risk of serious harm he posed to both women and children. Practitioners did not carry out safeguarding enquiries when he was sentenced for his most recent offence of arson. The impact of unmanageable workloads at both the probation practitioner and senior probation officer levels resulted in reduced oversight of new or struggling staff, frequent role changes and sickness absence. This made consistency and continuity of practice challenging. In this case, there was an increasing reliance on unqualified and trainee staff to manage workloads; this contributed to emerging factors linked to risk of harm not being recognised and escalated appropriately. 

This is a deeply concerning case that raises serious issues around the Probation Service’s assessment and management of risks of harm. This is a subject that has been of repeated concern to us in our local inspections and on which I have commented in my annual reports and in relation to other SFOs, 1 including that of Joseph McCann, 2 on which we reported in 2020. 

As a result of our findings, we make 17 recommendations for improvements to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice regarding safeguarding and risk assessment practice and procedures, which I expect the service to respond to as a matter of urgency. It is vital that key lessons are learned from this awful case. 

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Executive summary 

Inspectors found that, at every stage of probation involvement, from the pre-sentence report provided to the court on 08 June 2021 to the commission of the SFOs in September 2021, the Probation Service’s assessment and supervision of DB fell well below the necessary standard. A failure to assign the correct risk of harm level to DB (which should have been ‘high’ risk of serious harm given his past history) meant that the court was missing vital information when reaching its sentencing decision. It is possible that, had a holistic assessment been provided to court (including his pattern of offending against Asian men, use of callous and organised violence against prison staff, an analysis of previous noncompliance and the most recent high risk of serious harm assessments), an immediate, rather than suspended, prison sentence might have been imposed. 

As it was, the court imposed a suspended prison sentence, which included an entirely inappropriate curfew condition to reside with Ms Harris and her children. The case was then allocated for community supervision to an inexperienced and inappropriate practitioner. 

There were then subsequent failures by supervising managers and new practitioners to adequately read the case and amend the initial, incorrect ‘medium risk of serious harm’ to ‘high risk of serious harm’. 

Had DB’s risk of serious harm to the public and children been correctly assessed as high, and had his risk of serious harm to partners been correctly assessed as medium, the court may not have curfewed him to an address with Ms Harris and her children. He would have been allocated to an experienced probation practitioner. This would have led to enforced weekly face-to-face appointments and improved communication with partner agencies, and assertions lacking evidence would not have been relied upon and repeated in future assessments. 

In sections 7 to 11 of this report, we analyse the management of DB during his two most recent sentences, the first a prison sentence with probation licence supervision imposed on 29 January 2017 and the second a suspended sentence order managed in the community imposed on 09 June 2021. In this summary we focus on our key lines of enquiry and summarise why, in our view, the following deficiencies occurred. 

Process for recommending curfew requirements 

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires that, ‘before making a relevant order imposing a curfew requirement, the court must obtain and consider information about the place proposed to be specified in the order (including information as to the attitude of persons likely to be affected by the enforced presence there of the offender)’. The current court process requires that court officers undertake domestic safeguarding enquiries ‘in order to assess risk of harm and suitability for sentencing options in all offences involving domestic abuse’,  which DB’s index offence did not. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation recently published a thematic inspection on electronic monitoring, including its use for curfews. In this report, we recommended that HMPPS: 

• mandate the requirement to make domestic abuse and safeguarding checks before recommending a sentence or release on electronically monitored curfew 

• work with the police and children’s social care at a national level to ensure that probation practitioners in every region are provided with domestic abuse and safeguarding checks in a timely manner.  

Before DB’s sentencing for arson, the court officer did not carry out domestic abuse enquiries on the address, find out whether Ms Harris’s children were known to children’s services or speak directly to Ms Harris to ensure she consented to her home being used as a curfew address by DB. The Sentencing Act 2020 requires courts to have sight of this information before imposing a curfew order. However, it appears that courts do not have a mechanism to ensure this information is seen in every case. In this instance, important checks were not carried out and the court proceeded to issue a curfew order without them. 

Child safeguarding 

Inspectors found that probation practitioners in this case based their risk of harm assessments on whether DB had convictions against children or for domestic abuse, or if children’s services were involved with the family. These are highly relevant factors, but probation practitioners should delve deeper to explore the broader attitudes and behaviours of the person under supervision, including their impact on the children in their lives. DB did not have a history of offending against children. However, we found that insufficient consideration was given to whether his racist, manipulative and controlling attitudes and his violent and unpredictable behaviour would have a negative impact on the wellbeing and safety of children. 

We did not find evidence of sufficient professional curiosity about the nature and level of the role he played in the lives of the children of his partners. 

Intelligence was available to the Probation Service from Wiltshire police’s child sexual exploitation team regarding DB’s risk of serious sexual harm to girls. However, this information was not explored or recorded sufficiently to inform the risk of serious harm assessment and plans to keep children safe. 

The probation practitioner who prepared the court report following DB’s arson conviction took his account and version of events in relation to his offending and circumstances at face value. This included DB’s assertion that he played an important part in taking care of Lacey and John Paul Bennett. This information was not checked with their mother. There were no checks to find out if children’s services were currently working with the family or had previously done so. Most egregiously, the report stated that DB was ‘suitable’ for a curfew at Terri Harris’s address. When considering a curfew in the home of children, the attitudes of the people in that home8 and the best interests of the child should be given weight. 

At the start of the most recent order, in June 2021, there was again a failure to be professionally curious about the children living with DB. To probation practitioners, DB presented himself as a father figure to the children of Terri Harris and this was accepted without challenge. No contact was made with the children’s parents. When DB admitted to using drugs and alcohol this was not escalated to a manager and a children’s safeguarding referral was not completed. We found that the risk of serious harm to children was inaccurately assessed and seriously underestimated. 

It is our view that there should be a section of the offender assessment system (OASys) that solely considers the wellbeing and safety of the children – actual and potential – in the life of the person on probation. This would separate children from assessments of broader familial and intimate relationships, and specific prompts should be used to facilitate a more rigorous and defensible assessment of the impact on a child’s ability to thrive. 

Domestic abuse 

During previous orders, DB’s relationships with his mother and grandmother were not explored appropriately. Probation practitioners did not demonstrate sufficient professional curiosity, did not conduct safeguarding enquires, and took information from DB, again, at face value. 

Inspectors found that key information on risk from prison and from DB’s ex-partner and her current partner was not given due consideration and was not recorded appropriately. The impact of this failure was significant, as successive probation practitioners did not recognise that DB posed a risk of serious harm within relationships. 

Probation at court appeared to take DB’s word without verification. The author of the court report noted that a curfew would be ‘suitable’; they did this without undertaking safeguarding enquiries on the address or communicating with the owner/lead tenant of the property. This loophole in the mandated checks required before a curfew recommendation needs addressing urgently. 

Probation practitioners should have explored DB’s relationship with Ms Harris in greater depth, including whether he was coercively controlling her. DB was open about the fact that he had very limited income and that Ms Harris was paying for his accommodation, bills and food. Inspectors conclude that contact with Ms Harris by the Probation Service before sentencing, and at key assessment stages and when there was evidence of increasing risk, would have been appropriate.

Inspectors found that the risk of serious harm to known adults, including partners, was underestimated. There was no focus on safeguarding in this case and, as a result, DB was sentenced to an inappropriate curfew requirement that may have exacerbated the risk of harm to Ms Harris and her children. 

Fast delivery report 

The use of a short format report in this case, rather than a standard delivery report, was incorrect. Mr Bendall’s criminal history was complex and as such met the threshold for a suitable adjournment period to allow for a thorough read of his case to inform the completion of a more detailed report. This case met HMPPS’s own criteria for a standard delivery report as ‘additional assessment, professional discussion and multiple enquiries [were] required to aid risk assessment’ and ‘liaison where medical report [was] unavailable on the day’.

Senior probation officer workload 

Inspectors found that high workloads and staff shortages in the Swindon office impacted on the ability of probation practitioners to undertake high-quality work. Inspectors heard that this was a long-standing issue that they had experienced since the changes introduced with Transforming Rehabilitation. 

HM Inspectorate of Probation has often found that the span of line management control for senior probation officers (SPOs) is concerning. SPOs increasingly deal with complex staffing and human resources issues, for which some feel unequipped. This also reduces the time they have available to provide effective professional oversight of the work of the practitioners they line manage with individual cases. HM Inspectorate of Probation has previously found that SPOs do not have enough time to supervise all members of their teams to the standard they would wish, and when they do hold supervision sessions, there is often a focus on managing volumes of work rather than improving quality. This case highlighted this issue on two specific occasions. 

Firstly, there was insufficient oversight of a member of the probation court team, which led to a poor-quality fast delivery report being presented to the court. This was due to SPO sickness and a lack of resources to cover the absence. 

Secondly, SPO3, who managed the probation practitioner responsible for DB after sentencing from June 2021, was unable to engage with the case fully. SPO3 managed a large number of staff. She directly managed 16, but when covering for colleagues she had oversight of up to 30 PQiPs. This is far in excess of the line management span recommended by HMPPS, of 10 full-time equivalent posts for SPOs. This prevented her reading DB’s case at the allocation stage and from providing the necessary oversight. 

Inspectors found that the SPOs were also not given meaningful, regular and effective supervision and support. 

Professional qualification in probation and probation services officer training and oversight

The probation practitioners who managed DB from June to September 2021 were inexperienced, unqualified and had insufficient support to understand and recognise the risks and needs in the case. We conclude that they should not have been exposed to cases such as DB at this stage in their careers. Following the unification of probation services, new guidance on allocations has been published, and this is welcomed. This guidance sets out clearly that ‘some case allocation decisions will rely on the judgement of the operational manager to decide whether a case is suitable to be managed by a probation officer or a probation services officer (PSO). This decision will be based on individual circumstances of the case, and the skills, ability and experience of the individual officers.’ 

Inspectors heard concerns about the efficacy of online training, especially for key learning on domestic abuse and child safeguarding, from all grades of staff, not just professional qualification in probation (PQiP) and PSO staff. There had been an understandable reliance on this method during the period of Covid-19 restrictions; however, some staff noted that prior to the pandemic there had been a trend towards self-reliant e-learning and development. Practitioners said that such self-selective training and development suffered when staff spent their hours ‘firefighting’ with excessive caseloads. DB’s case was one of 10 being managed by a staff member who had yet to complete basic safeguarding training.

6. Recommendations 

We have directed the recommendations to HMMPS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure national learning. HMPPS should: 

Court work and curfew requirements 

1. ensure that domestic abuse enquiries are carried out on everyone sentenced so that accurate risk assessments can be made and safe proposals are made in court reports 

2. ensure that child safeguarding enquiries are made in all cases where the person being sentenced lives with, is responsible for, has access to, or is likely to have a negative impact on the wellbeing or safety of a child 

3. develop a mechanism and reliable processes with relevant agencies to allow sufficient safeguarding enquiries to be completed, to verify information and therefore reduce reliance on self-disclosure 

4. ensure that sufficient safeguarding enquiries with relevant agencies are always carried out before finding a curfew requirement suitable, and that policy/practice guidance clarifies that assessment of suitability post-sentence should be ongoing. 

5. quality-assure risk assessments and proposals to the courts for accuracy and suitability 

6. introduce a process to contact relevant adult residents of the proposed curfew address and obtain their prior consent to a curfew condition at their address to assess whether the address is suitable for an electronically monitored curfew 

7. ensure that court reports provide a sufficient analysis of the person’s circumstances, including analysis of risk of harm, to provide safe sentencing options. 

Child safeguarding 

8. include a specific section in OASys that is dedicated to assessing and planning for the safety of children, and ensure that the nature of contact and impact the person on probation has in the life of the child have been considered on both current and future children in the person’s life 

9. ensure that the impact on children’s safety and wellbeing is sufficiently considered in every case. 

Risk management plans 

10. ensure that probation practitioners contact partners, family or other key adults in the lives of the person under supervision to determine and discuss their inclusion in risk management plans. 

Training and support 

11. consider the suitability and efficacy of online training, particularly on domestic abuse, child safeguarding and other key training required to correctly assess and robustly manage risk of serious harm 

12. ensure that each PQiP has access to a mentor who has at least two years’ experience as a qualified probation practitioner. 

13. dedicate time for probation practitioners to engage in reflective discussions with colleagues and the line manager regarding cases. 

Allocation practice 

14. ensure that NDelius entries for ‘management oversight – allocation’ include evidence that the manager has considered the complexity of the case and the capabilities and capacity of the probation practitioner receiving the case. 

Oversight of SPOs 

15. review and monitor SPO workloads to ensure that sufficient line management and management oversight of case work can be provided effectively 

16. review the line management responsibilities and supervision of SPOs responsible for PQiPs to ensure the standard of PQiP management and oversight is appropriately robust, including the suitability of the cases allocated to them. 

Ministry of Justice should: 

17. amend legislation to be more prescriptive of the information that should be obtained and considered by the court, to assure themselves of the safety of other household members at a proposed curfew address before they impose an electronically monitored curfew. 

Until this can be actioned HMCTS should issue guidance to court staff requiring them to satisfy themselves that relevant checks have been undertaken by the probation courts team.

Reviews

I guess we've all learnt to take online reviews with a pinch of salt and especially if they are either totally glowing or condemnatory. An idle Google search brought up a selection of NPS employee reviews over recent time:- 

It's a great organisation

PSO Court officer. (Current Employee) - Crown Court. - 23 February 2021
I love the NPS, I have worked there for 20 years and can honestly say I have loved every day of it. The staff are great too, like minded people trying their best to do a good job. Pros Like minded people, friendly, helpful, good job prospects and security. Cons Can be stressful at times.

Waste of my life

Case Administration Officer (Former Employee) - East Midlands - 5 January 2021
I spent the best part of my working life, working for the National Probation Service. The NPS taught me professionalism, granted. But there is little to no room for progression. I genuinely do not know what they are looking for in an employee. The interview process in terms of PQIP/PSO is a joke, and completely disheartening. I was knocked back on a number of occasions. Since I left, after feeling completely worthless and questioning what is wrong with me, I have completed a Bachelors Degree with a first class grade, I won the vice chancellors award for academic excellence whilst at university and within 6 months in my new job role in the private sector, I was promoted to Deputy Area Manager. After 6 years of wondering what was wrong with me, it turns out it was them. Avoid, I did so much for the organisation, I covered every area that needed cover, and received nothing in return for my efforts.

Dreadful

PQIP (Former Employee) - London, Greater London - 16 November 2020
An absolute circus. Terrifyingly bad. Very little training, hectic, chaotic, prevalent blame culture and managers are consequently sneaky and snide. The service users are chaos and the "business" is worse. I take my hat off to anyone who can do the job of a PO or PSO for any length of time without becoming mentally ill or turning into a heartless box ticker. Pro - You are unlikely to ever be asked to leave as they are absolutely desperate for staff. Con - Any and all you can think of and more. Stay away.

Interesting place to work

Approved Premises Supervising Officer (Current Employee) - Norwich - 15 October 2020
In this workplace you get to do a job that really matters, to help people make better choices, and to do something about it when they don't. You get out as much as you put in with this one. The hours are long, but normally you'd work either a Mon to Fri pattern or 4 on 4 off (which is perfect). I'd recommend looking into some youtube videos of what residential workers and probation officers do before applying to see if you'd be interested. It's not the kind of job for everyone, you need to be a strong character yet empathetic. You also need to be sure of your own decisions as a lot of the time its up to you to make the call. in my experience it's best to document everything you see. Pros great pay for the work you do, interesting place to work, nice helpful staff. Cons long hours, high stress sometimes.

Fast-paced environment

Admin Assistant (Former Employee) - Rotherham, South Yorkshire - 11 June 2020
I undertook a temporary placement and unfortunately the IT equipment was not set up for the entire duration of my placement, which meant that I was unable to be as productive as I would have liked. However, the staff were lovely and unfortunately my grievance would be with the IT facilitator and higher management.

Fast paced but rewarding

Victim Liaison (Former Employee) - London Bridge - 23 March 2020
I enjoyed working for the National Probation Service when I started in 2003. There was a lot of training on offer and I felt that I was able to do my job well. Management changed regularly and did not always know the role we were doing as a team. Too many restructures.

Avoid at all costs

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Wales - 14 February 2020
Bully and harass management style. Toxic culture, excessive workload, lack of progression opportunities, total lack of consideration for employee welfare. Avoid at all costs.

Ok to work for

Receptionist (Former Employee) - Liverpool, Merseyside - 2 February 2020
Ok to work for, very stressful and target oriented, would look elsewhere after a few years as progression can be slow if you are looking at moving into management.

Under staffed

PSO (Current Employee) - St Albans, Hertfordshire - 24 January 2020
Unfortunately Probation have a very high turn over an staff are under paid, this in turn creates staff shortages. Case loads are too high, staff are consistently on sick leave due to stress and the general demands have become overwhelming.

Disappointed

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) - Bracknell - 20 January 2020
The entire Criminal Justice System is in chaos and Probation is not an exception. Poor opportunities for advancement, a culture riddled with suspicion and lack of staff consultation.

Work place culture

Unpaid Work Supervisor (Former Employee) - Tyne and Wear - 9 January 2020
If you're not in the click you won’t go far. Most managers are having affairs with other colleagues. Not my type of situation. Wages are a good thing.

Working to deadlines, and targets can be challenging but is manageable with good time management and planning

ex-Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Walsall-Cannock - 4 December 2019
I enjoyed the work with offenders both with young people and adults. Managing their risk of harm and their risk of offending. Working with them on a one to one basis in order to change their offending behaviour and helping them to become law abiding citizens. Protecting the public and victims from harm.

Working in partnership with other professionals such as the police, the courts, prisons, Social Services, MAPPA. Writing court and prison reports, attending prison visits, to compile Pre sentence reports, parole reports, sentence planning. Completion of programme review. Completion of the OASYS.

Unimpressed

Probation Service Officer (Former Employee) - St Helens - 13 December 2019
I felt very disconnected from upper management - they would make decisions based on an abstract view of the service, this would not translate well with staff on ground level.

Very bad gossip culture and poor management

PSO (Current Employee) - Wales - 11 December 2019
Worst place I've ever worked. Bullying culture and absent management. Very stressful and poorly paid and treated. Not appreciated by management who don't understand the pressures.

Awful place to work

Probation Service Officer (Former Employee) - Durham, Durham - 26 November 2019
Unless you are desperate don't work at the NPS. No consideration for mental health, work loads are ridiculous, little training just completion of MANY books. No progression as a PSO, stuck in a dead end role!

Probation officer for years but wouldn’t work for them now

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Newcastle upon Tyne, - 5 November 2019
I was a very experienced probation officer when I left. The job had always been challenging at times but in recent years much less rewarding. It is now a very pressured environment in which to work where you will have a caseload of high risk offenders with no respite. You can expect to have a caseload well in excess of the workload management agreements. This is due, in part, to staff shortages. This has been caused by mismanagement causing staff sickness, problems with recruiting and retention. There is a culture of blame with little or no support from management. Your team are likely to be supportive as, unfortunately, you’ll all be in the same position; Overworked, overwhelmed and absolutely under valued. My advice is don’t go there.

Challenging role with not enough front line staff

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Luton - 22 October 2019
Rewarding job but with caseloads of 50-70 high risk cases there was not much time per week to make enough of a difference with each service user. I thoroughly enjoyed helping young people in particular before they commit to a life of crime.

PQIP Programme graduate intake

PQIP applicant (Former Employee) - North - 17 September 2019
Took days to get through to the advice/help centre on the telephone number provided, was also put through to wrong departments. Poor information and advice was given before attending an assessment centre, which meant that it was unclear as to what was actually being assessed on the day and how to prepare. One part of the assessment was a "group discussion" but quickly turned into a free for all with people talking over each other and repeating themselves. Requested feedback on my performance which was denied, and they then told me that they hoped this would help with further applications? Overall, unclear as to what was required of a candidate and what was actually being assessed. Pros Assessment staff were friendly on the day. Cons Poor communication, no feedback, no evidence of fair assessment.

All changed

Court/Payback Admin (Former Employee) - Huddersfield, W Yorks - 11 September 2019 

Worked there as it was being sold off. A lot of staff were shunted around to accommodate this. Overall some of the best people I have ever worked with doing a tough job. Understand it's better now.

Great colleagues, poor management

Case Administrator (Former Employee) - Guildford, Surrey - 28 August 2019
The gulf between employees and managers is ever increasing. Unfair workloads due to poor retention and employment of staff in a very expensive area, which leads to overworked employees who are undervalued.

Challenging workplace

PSO (Former Employee) - Brownhills, West Midlands - 22 August 2019
Very high case loads, stressful environment with high expectations. However rewarding. High staff sick leave due to stress. Difficult to progress. Supportive managers when it is needed.

Calling all target driven salesmen with a Criminology Degree

Offender Manager (Current Employee) - South Central - 30 July 2019
Under resourced and unrelentless pressure to hit targets regardless of how few staff there are. The introduction of laptops has meant targets in danger of being missed, can be hit by working out of hrs at home, for free. This organisation does not care for it's staff and as a result staff are resigning without jobs to go to, such is the burnout rate. Pros Supportive colleagues. Cons Target driven environment. Unrelenting pressure. Desk bound 85% or the time, appalling pay, lack of managerial support.

Good employer with a unique working environment

Divisional Hub Manager (Former Employee) - London - 6 June 2019
Good employer with a unique working environment. Very good managerial structure and support; opportunities for advancement; depending on the position, good work-life balance.

Depressing and oppressive

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - Nottingham - 4 April 2019
Management is poor. No support. Many staff with poor mental health. No support properly given. Staff blamed for offender decisions. Staff sacked for offender decisions. Demoralizing workplace.

Great colleagues to work with

Probation Officer (Current Employee) - West London, Greater London - 15 January 2019
National Probation Service is a government agency run by the Ministry of Justice and manages offenders who pose a high risk of harm to society. People who work here are civil servants and are expected to follow the code of conduct.

A typical day at work consists is seeing service users and assisting them to manage and address problems in their lives. This can range from 1:1 work, referrals to programmes to initiating enforcement action. The work environment is pleasant and enables you to discuss complex cases with colleagues. The people who work in this industry have a caring nature and genuinely want to help those who are less advantaged.

I have acquired great skills in assessment and management of individuals with complex needs. I have developed collaborative working and established valuable links with external agencies, such as police, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists etc. The company has recently undergone a technology upgrade and we can now work remotely, which assists with timely communication, work life balance and has improved my IT skills.

There is a culture in Probation that everyone just accepts changes, whether good or bad, and blame management for lack of representation at higher levels. Management are mainly concerned with targets and wellbeing is second. Encouragement for advancement is poor and there is no ongoing training. In my view, no merit is given for hard work and commitment, which is expected. Pros Annual leave entitlement is generous, job security, good pension scheme, recent technology upgrade, Sessional work (court, hostels) available to boost income. Cons Caseloads are high. You are required to work for long hours to ensure contact entries are up-to date, reports for external agencies completed, no training for advancement, salary scheme is poor and not in line with inflation. No bonus scheme.

Could do a lot better

Probation Officer (Former Employee) - London, Greater London - 1 October 2018
Quite dictatorial and pressurising but the money as a subcontractor is very good. However there is no opportunities for progression, most of the jobs are all internally organised and there is no official human resources service. Quite eye opening when you consider that the majority of the customer base are men and enlightening in terms of the rule of law. That said as a professional you are expected to be everything to everyone and the culture is very blaming when things don't go according to plan. Pros salary is good as a subcontractor. Cons dictatorial and often uncompromising culture.

National Probation

Administration Officer (Current Employee) - Worthing, West Sussex - 19 August 2018
Interesting, varied, constantly changing. Great staff - most dedicated and hardworking and want to make a difference. Split between private and public sector has been difficult.
Unfortunately now changing towards more impersonal, centralised, hot desking, non team, with emphasis on stats, which changes what has been a good culture and working environment. However, still interesting and worthwhile employment. Pros Interesting, varied, challenging, strong on diversity, great people, good degree of trust. Cons Always changing, can be demanding and stressful, wages not increasing.

Challenging but rewarding

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) - London, Greater London - 18 July 2018
Typical day requires at least four cups of coffee. Learning constantly, especially about how deluded I must have been to decide to work with high risk ex-offenders. Management are fantastic, in particular they are rarely here to supervise which means I get to work at my own pace without having to worry about the crone on my shoulder. Workplace culture is exactly that, cultured and diverse. For example everyone has their own opinions, unanimously wrong however. Hardest part in all seriousness is arriving to work on time. Most enjoyable part is tough to decide between reaching 5pm or spending time there dreaming about a real career.

Interesting place to work

Probation Officer Assistant (Current Employee) - Chatham, Kent - 20 March 2018
The team are great to work for, however due the to low resources one finds they are battling all the time. The office is quite small, however individuals have made the best of things, ensuring that it is business as usual. Pros Local location Cons Very little security.

Pressurised environment

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) - Portsmouth - 15 January 2018
Over the years the Service has changed dramatically. Particularly since the split in the service 3+ years ago with National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company trying to work together. Definitely not as an efficient Service as it was when NPS was overall in charge. Many targets not being met. Pros Good Colleagues Cons The split in the service not working.

Probation as a Job

There are staff surveys, conversations on Facebook, comments on this blog and a new one on me but something that seems to be growing, Employee Reviews:-  

A challenging place to work but enjoyable

PSO Offender Manager (Current Employee) – London, Greater London – 14 February 2019

The best part of this job to me was knowing that I was doing my part to help safeguard the public and give people the chance to make changes to their lives for the better. Doing this role you will learn a lot about report writing, problem solving, conflict resolution and, possibly most importantly, about yourself. There are times where the role can be emotionally draining and it can be quite disheartening at times as well. Unfortunately, the bad generally out-weighs the good due to the nature of the people you are working with however when things go well, there is a real sense of achievement. You'll encounter people from all different backgrounds and walks of life which can again be both good and bad. You need to be resilient, caring and determined to do this role. Great communication skills is an absolute must to be good at this role.

Pros
Benefits associated with being a Civil Servant
Cons
Emotionally demanding

*****

Great colleagues to work with

Probation Officer (Current Employee) – West London, Greater London – 15 January 2019

National Probation Service is a government agency run by the Ministry of Justice and manages offenders who pose a high risk of harm to society. People who work here are civil servants and are expected to follow the code of conduct. A typical day at work consists is seeing service users and assisting them to manage and address problems in their lives. This can range from 1:1 work, referrals to programmes to initiating enforcement action. The work environment is pleasant and enables you to discuss complex cases with colleagues. The people who work in this industry have a caring nature and genuinely want to help those who are less advantaged.

I have acquired great skills in assessment and management of individuals with complex needs. I have developed collaborative working and established valuable links with external agencies, such as police, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists etc. The company has recently undergone a technology upgrade and we can now work remotely, which assists with timely communication, work life balance and has improved my IT skills. There is a culture in Probation that everyone just accepts changes, whether good or bad, and blame management for lack of representation at higher levels. Management are mainly concerned with targets and wellbeing is second. Encouragement for advancement is poor and there is no ongoing training. In my view, no merit is given for hard work and commitment, which is expected.

Pros
Annual leave entitlement is generous, job security, good pension scheme, recent technology upgrade, Sessional work (court, hostels) available to boost income.
Cons
Caseloads are high. You are required to work for long hours to ensure contact entries are up-to date, reports for external agencies completed, no training for advancement, salary scheme is poor and not in line with inflation. No bonus scheme.

*****

On a typical day

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) – London, SLough Bracknell – 10 December 2018

A typical day at work would be to supervise offenders on licence (out of custody) or who are serving their sentence int he community. It would also involve one to one work to assist with their rehabilitation and re-integration into the community. The supervision of my offenders would require strict diary management. Having a list of tasks to complete and insuring that I prioritise my tasks daily. I would schedule in my diary, home visits which would require completing home assessments to establish if the home and family are happy/suitable for my Service User to return home. Risk assessments will need to be conducted. This would also involve inter-agency working with the Police/Social Services and Other multi-agency working.

My role would also involve working with a team of colleagues and ensuring that we communicate, gain advice on court reports or assessments we complete and having the confidence and flexibility to ask our colleagues if they are able to assist me if my workload is unmanageable or if a situation that wasn't planned, ie an offender comes out of custody without our prior knowledge or I am unable to supervise an offender at particular time, I can speak to my colleagues who are happy to help me.

The hardest part of my job is the unpredictability of my role. You may have set a list of tasks to complete the following day, however, you may have to complete an oasys assessment or a recall paper if one of your Service Users has committed a further offence which will result in a return to prison or if you service user arrives in the office unexpectedly more...

Pros
Pensions childcare vouchers
Cons
Unpredictability

*****

Could do a lot better

Probation Officer (Former Employee) – London, Greater London – 1 October 2018

Quite dictatorial and pressurising but the money as a subcontractor is very good. However there is no opportunities for progression, most of the jobs are all internally organised and there is no official human resources service. Quite eye opening when you consider that the majority of the customer base are men and enlightening in terms of the rule of law. That said as a professional you are expected to be everything to everyone and the culture is very blaming when things don't go according to plan.

Pros
Salary is good as a subcontractor
Cons
Dictatorial and often uncompromising culture

*****

National Probation

Administration Officer (Current Employee) – Worthing, West Sussex – 19 August 2018

Interesting, varied, constantly changing. Great staff - most dedicated and hardworking and want to make a difference. Split between private and public sector has been difficult.
Unfortunately now changing towards more impersonal, centralised, hot desking, non team, with emphasis on stats, which changes what has been a good culture and working environment. However, still interesting and worthwhile employment.

Pros
Interesting, varied, challenging, strong on diversity, great people, good degree of trust
Cons
Always changing, can be demanding and stressful, wages not increasing

*****

Pressurised environment

Probation Service Officer (Current Employee) – Portsmouth – 15 January 2018

Over the years the Service has changed dramatically. Particularly since the split in the service 3+ years ago with National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company trying to work together. Definitely not as an efficient Service as it was when NPS was overall in charge. Many targets not being met.

Pros
Good Colleagues
Cons
The split in the service not working.

*****

Downhill since Privatised

Probation Service Officer (Former Employee) – Stevenage – 12 October 2017

This was once a great place to work, obtained 1st class training over the years. Helped change lives. Then it was privatised. The cuts where made and took away the true meaning of the Probation Service. Rehabilitate, protect the public and reparation. Now, poor system, work harder for less, less resources and increased workload with poor top management.

Pros
Excellent training and development opportunities
Cons
Long unplanned hours due heavy workload.

*****

Soul destroying

Probation Officer (Current Employee) – Wolverhampton, West Midlands – 10 January 2017

Because of cuts and high case loads, staff sickness is rife and staff morale is low. If you are unlucky enough to enter a negative office, everyday will be soul destroying. Your training will be sub-par depending on the location you are placed and should anything go wrong, for whatever reason, you will be thrown under the bus. This is not an organisation i would recommend working unless you have a real passion for working with difficult people/offenders.

*****

Great Workplace

Probation Officer (Current Employee) – Lancashire – 8 January 2017

Great place to work, the team are very friendly and approachable. The work is hard but it is rewarding when completed. A typical day at work is managing offenders risk in the community.

Pros
Good staff
Cons
Long hours

*****

High pressure, high stress role

Probation Officer (Former Employee) – N/A – 1 January 2017

High pressure, high stress role where policy/procedural changes seem to occur on an almost daily basis. Co-workers are great though, and may a firm friendships have been made over the years.

Pros
Friendly co-workers.
Cons
Long hours, high stress, very high work-load.

Napo at Work in the South West 17

Thanks go to the reader for forwarding the following:-

South South Western Branch UPDATE 3 October 2018

Dear Members,

Take a break with a cuppa and a biscuit and read the latest update.

TR2

All Napo Members DDC CRC & NPS will be aware of the consultation to the TR2 plan from the MOJ. Napo disagree that re letting private arrangements should be continued especially after the condemnation of the Parliamentary cross party views released in June. Attached to this update is a copy of the SSW Branch response to the TR2 consultation submitted in addition to the one from Napo Central. This was possible due to member’s feedback and input from the Branch Exec.

Members should take a moment to look at the de- professionalization issues for probation officers (Question 10) noted by the split when PO’s were no longer able to act on behalf of the courts sentencing planning through professional reports. This is of specific concern when PO’s are something of a rarity in the CRC, and under Working Links dysfunctional Management sees exploitation of PSO’s by giving them work that would ordinarily be completed by qualified PO’s, and therefore paid at a higher rate.

Other issues for concern regarding erosion of professional standards within DDCCRC are:

• Newly recruited PSO’s being requested to complete Recall and Breach Reports without having received any training. 
• Unqualified Line Mangers managing OM Teams. 
• PSO’s instructed to attend Child Protection meetings in the absence of PO’s and excessive caseloads of DA and CP cases causing concerns should here be an SFO, and who would be held accountable. 
• De-skilling of existing PO’s as no opportunities for CPD. 

In relation to the wider context the document was endorsed and supported by the Branch Exec and overall is clear indication that CRCs need to be organised differently if returning to public services is not an option. It cannot just be about hitting the targets at any cost. This is damaging to Probation and the service users.

CRC PAY

Working Links (WL) have continued to withhold the 1% increment lift in pay that is an entitlement despite assurances that this would be paid this summer. We have asked the general secretary to lodge a claim for the interest lost on the monies that should have been paid in April to those eligible staff.

DISPUTE

The dispute continues and will do for the foreseeable future. As we understand it the WL infrastructure is now falling apart as so many of their senior management have seemingly left and this includes Mr Bell who goes at the end of the month. We ask why wait? Most importantly we are doubtful that WL can hold on much longer due to the mounting pressure from the multiple debentures being served on them by Aurelius. This can hardly be regarded as a friendly act, but more indicative that Aurelius will not deliver any reinvestment. Is this the fast journey to the end game, as the MOJ will surely not pour more cash into these failures?

The NAPO AGM 5-6 October 2018 /Certification Officer Complaint

Unfortunately earlier this year our Branch Chair Dino Peros had no choice but to lodge a complaint against Napo National Officers with the Certification Officer. This was due to what can only be described as a cowardly, internal attack from National Officers based on groundless complaints that had no genuine substance to our knowledge and considered opinion. The executive fully supported and backed Dino, his team and formal representative Dave Rogan Ex SW Napo branch leader and National Napo Representative. Thanks to Dave‘s experience and skills he made an excellent job of both presenting the case and questioning of the witnesses called. Having attended the hearing I am able to confirm he held his own against the barrister hired by Napo to protect their interests (at what cost to their members I wonder)?

All four issues which led Napo to be taken to the Certifications Officer have been upheld and so vindicates the course of action taken by Dino and Dave. This was the only way to pursue the impasse and failure of Napo to consider the reputational risks to their flawed actions. The findings of the court ruling have been published and are available on the Certifications Officers website. There may well be a more detailed report on this matter in due course. We are sure it will generate lots of questions and we will address these as they arise.

Due to the above this is the first year ever that the SSW branch is not being represented by any attendance at the AGM. It is a conscious decision by the executive who have made their concerns patently clear in multiple correspondences to the now outgoing NAPO National Officers. Correspondence from the Branch was ignored and a formal complaint lodged with regard to this has never been responded to. This is not acceptable behaviour from the paid officials (who are paid by us the members), or the National Officers. None of the branch executive will be attending as a mark of our respects to our Branch Chair. He has 100% backing from the executive for his foresight, planning and management of the dispute, in addition to all the other numerous tasks he undertakes individually on behalf of members. Union colleagues who work alongside him can testify he continually works and delivers on behalf of those he represents. Be assured that the SSW Branch Exec will continue to look to the best interests of our members and if that means holding the top table to account that is what we must and will do. We must remember this is not about personalities but the interests of the members.

Minimum Contact – CRC’s

This is the current plan to bring back 1-1 working with service users issued by the Contract Management Team, and you will no doubt be quite familiar with the document since its issue late last week.

Napo are looking carefully at the latest update on the implementation and already there has been some exchanges of e mails on the issues. We will be looking closely at the mess that has been developed by WL: Office closures, centralised telephone call centres for probation case management and the rapid need to reverse the gross errors of privateers failing to listen to any senior management (mentioned in the consultation) or the trade unions. This erroneous damage to case management by remote has been at last recognised as wrong, however WL dress it up. Nonetheless it is time to look to continue to protect members from any unfair treatment by the need to reinvest in local service delivery and to ensure protected and managed caseloads with return of minimum reporting standards. WL as they decline in authority will not likely be able to manage the need for expansion and so Napo SSW’s message is to look to our established ACO colleagues and to support the CPO to find some ways of engagement to return to proper case management, but at the same time staged protectively to ensure no more staff can be exploited by the continued misdirection of the failing WL’s model and management.

More updates will be issued as the need arises. In the meantime please share this with your non- union member colleagues and encourage them to join the Union. Don’t forget to keep myself, Dino and John Brownlow up to date with information and concerns that you may have as you JNCC Reps in the CRC.

NPS members please remember this also applies to you. SSW NPS Consultation Rep and Vice Chair is Jill Narin. Get in touch with her.

It may be a cliché but we are stronger together.

Denice James
JNCC Rep

--oo00oo--

The full Certification Officer's Report can be found here.

A Licence to Practice?

Ahead of tomorrow's Napo AGM, an interesting discussion seen on Facebook:-

David A Raho I’ll be proposing and speaking to this motion at the Napo AGM

‘Urgent call for a licence to practice to safeguard Probation as a profession. 

Our profession is under existential threat as some of the most influential employers, are now seriously questioning whether probation qualifies as a profession at all, and whether, for example, individual Probation staff are in fact qualified professionals and therefore deserving of professional status.

It is now an urgent priority that an independently validated ‘Licence to Practice’, that is universally recognised by all employers, that unifies all the various qualifications, training and experience, that might allow someone to describe themselves as a probation practitioner, is carefully considered and developed. This could be similar in format to that used by other professions, such as Teaching and Social Work, where a range of qualifications, including those obtained overseas, are recognised and accepted, by all employers.

We call on Napo’s Officers and Officials, as an urgent priority, to do everything possible to work with the employers and others to establish and agree a ‘Licence to Practice’ to safeguard our probation profession and preserve the professional status of all probation practitioners both for now and in the future.

London Branch’

I have just heard my seconder who is pretty knowledgeable about the subject will not now be attending conference so I will probably be formerly seconded. If you are coming then feel free to contribute to the debate. However, I am interested in hearing any views you might have on the subject whether or not you are a Napo member.

I am fully on board with this. The way people are being pushed through various forms of training with no consistency is a huge worry. Not to mention the fact that 90% of my HR records went to the CRC when our HR people did, even though I did not. That's my training courses since qualifying as an example.

How would people get a “licence to practise”? I’ve been in my role as a PSO (now responsible officer in CRC) for over 12 years, yet the only relevant training I’ve had is training events run by Probation. Would that qualify, or would I suddenly find myself unqualified to practice? And what would happen then?

David A Raho I think a better question might be to consider who actually authorises us to carry out Probation work/services and what is it that we should and shouldn’t do in terms of tasks and responsibilities as persons employed in our particular pay band/role? I would argue that this is unclear at present and needs to be clarified. 

It is often assumed that we are authorised to do what we do because we can do it or have been asked to do it or have been doing it. This is not right and unscrupulous employers are presently able to exploit this grey area as no one is telling them otherwise and they have no authoritative reference point or benchmarks. Is it your employer the MoJ or perhaps someone else or the law that authorises you? 

I think you have just highlighted one of the knotty problems that many employers would not really like to tackle properly nor wish to debate professional status or identity as they would rather treat frontline staff as a homogeneous group who can be paid less. The term Responsible Officer applies equally to all practitioner probation staff as it does to Electronic Monitoring Service employees, those employed by a mayor on probation related projects or indeed anyone contracted or sub contracted to provide probation services. It is a worrying and unwelcome development. 

Until TR there was effectively a licence to practice (it was never referred to as a LTP but technically existed within the NNC framework effectively preventing maverick employers from making up job roles when it suited them) agreed by probation employers and conferred upon staff when employed that allowed you to call yourself a Probation Officer or Probation Service Officer and to hold particular cases and carry out particular responsibilities and undertake particular tasks if you happened to be employed by a probation service. 

PSOs were differently qualified (I would never refer to PSOs as unqualified staff) and some aspire to be specifically qualified POs and some decide to remain as PSOs doing excellent work in that role. This once generally accepted arrangement has gradually been eroded to the point where employers now see little difference between different grades of staff such as POs and PSOs and have attempted to conflate roles, for instance some CRC owners regard the PSO job as the best fit with the tasks and responsibilities that they now carry out and in some cases argue that the place for the majority of POs is in the NPS and CRCs only require very few POs with PSOs being used to do everything necessary for a reduced cost.

CRC employers appear to be encouraged in this process to cut cost rather than strive for professional quality and raised standards and indeed invest in the recruitment and retention of experienced POs or be overly concerned about training new POs. This was highlighted to me a few months ago when a senior manager challenged me to explain the difference between a PO who had received 2 years training and a recently recruited PSO who had received received 8 weeks training other than cost. Their argument was that you didn’t need an in depth knowledge of criminology to do the job they wanted them to do. Furthermore they questioned whether a PSO might be appointed to an SPO role or indeed ACO (Area Manager in London) if they had acquired management experience in another job. 

The fact is that the contracts that the CRCs for example signed with the MoJ see little difference between frontline roles because to be frank the MoJ, Noms and now HMPPS have traditionally been prison service dominated and they have not understood Probation and therefore avoid the can of worms of defining professional roles and/or professional boundaries. Some decision makers see no defined roles or boundaries and simply see PSOs as cheaper more malleable POs. 

Pragmatically if you were an employer and the MoJ says that you do not have to, then why bother to employ POs if you can employ cheaper staff to do the same/similar tasks? That is not to devalue the considerable experience, good practice and training of PSOs who may well wish to progress to the level of training required to be a PO or indeed remain as a PSO and take on particular tasks according to their training and experience. PSOs perhaps need to question more what they are being asked to do and why and also whether it is really their job to do it. 

Importantly PSOs should reestablish the right to say ‘no’ to supervise particular cases, do particular tasks, and take on certain responsibilities that they should not be expected to perform. In this context blurring the boundaries between staff grades by using generic terms such as Offender Manager and Responsible Officer could well be seen as a thinly veiled attack on the Probation profession as it is misleading and using it does not recognise differences in qualifications and experience. It opens the door for employers to reduce staff who are more expensive to train and/or who have proven that they can reach particular standards and replace them with cheaper staff they do not have to train to the same level but from whom they expect similar work. 

If the current thinking of some employers was applied to other professions then qualifications to do things would become meaningless. You would go to your local medical centre and not know whether you were speaking to or being treated by a Doctor, Nurse or Receptionist trained in first aid. ‘A medical manager will see you now’. In schools those teaching children and responsible for their education may not be qualified teachers and no real differentiations made between educators such as Teachers Classroom Assistants and administration. Those giving health and safety advice for example may not know what they are talking about or those that do may not be easily recognised putting people at risk of accident an injury. Social workers would all be the same and not necessarily professionally qualified to make professional decisions any to carry out particular statutory functions such as sectioning and taking children into care. 

The public expect that matters are being carried out by those qualified and accredited to do so. All those professions have professional bodies that define what it is to be a Teacher, Doctor, Nurse, Health and Safety Advisor, Social Worker etc. and employers who wish to make up roles or pay professionals to do some of their core tasks for less are firmly resisted. Hence the urgent need for an independent organisation in Probation to look at all the qualifications and experience a person has to perform a particular role and not leave this for individual employers to work out and define according to their business models. 

In Probation we would need to recognise different roles, qualifications and experience both retrospectively and going forward. The usual way is through a verified record of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and the establishment of pathways to professional recognition. Training events might, for example, be validated for the purpose of CPD. Qualifications, including those from other countries, could be assessed properly rather than guesses as to their validity made. It is a large project not least because Probation qualifications and the qualification bar has changed in the last 45 years - which accounts for most of those now working in Probation. However, I am confident that if established this will do much to preserve professional identity and recognise probation staff of all grades as professionals.

*****

I’ve found recently I’m one of the rare ‘qualified’ diploma level 4 PSOs through Portsmouth Uni that exists. I have two other degrees and many PSOs are highly experienced and qualified but it would be nice to be recognised in the way u r proposing thank you!! Oh and I thank Xxxxxxxx my previous SPO for supporting and pushing all of that cohort through just before the split!!

David A Raho I would definitely like that to happen and make it possible for more clearly defined pathways and more standardised and logical career progression and development for you and others.

Agree Dave but I hope we are not creating stick to beat ourselves like HCPC for SW's. A licence to practice means it can be taken away and bang goes your career anywhere in Probation.There needs to be safeguards in place.I have represented people at HCP it is very formal and hideous for the member.

David A Raho Agree but hopefully if we get the right people such as your good self with all your years of training expertise involved and have core probation principles at the heart of it so we can hopefully avoid the pitfalls. Be happy to discuss and pick your brains over a pint or two at conference. About time we took charge of our own profession.

David A Raho ok see you there.

A Desperate Plea

I find the following seen on Facebook absolutely astonishing and yet further evidence of the utter chaos probation finds itself in. We desperately need some effective leadership!

I NEED YOUR HELP

This week I have been challenged by a very senior CRC executive to convince them that there is a strong evidenced case to support the theory that reducing average caseloads to say 45 (but increasing the expectation from staff that those who are assessed as being at highest risk of reoffending in the CRC are worked intensively using all we know from the offender engagement project SEEDS etc) will result in reduced reoffending. Whilst we know this may be true any claim to truth needs to be evidenced.

What I am looking for are detailed evidenced comments of research, pilots etc so that I can use to counter the assertion that frontline probation staff are no better at reducing reoffending rates than any responsible person they might hire with a passing interest to supervise offenders/clients. This is quite an important debate to win as failure to provide a compelling counter argument could have dire consequences for our profession.

Whether evidence is ignored is another matter. Please share this message widely as I want to be overwhelmed with considered responses. Let's see if we can crowdsource some arguments. Your job as a Probation Officer or PSO whether NPS or CRC may depend upon it. Please either leave a comment here or contact me.

David A Raho

--oo00oo--

Would be worth contacting Shadd Maruna via message on twitter. Also isn't this the sort of thing the Probation Institute is supposed to be doing? - big ask for a Union rep.

Good on you DR. Police at Xxxxxxxx IOM scheme have produced figures for 2014-2016 showing that during that period Xxxxxxxx IOM with a cohort of approximately 200 service users saved £6 million in saved court police and prison costs. This was owing to intensive work involving police probation DWP housing and drug multi disc work. I'm not sure that is what PTB have in mind exactly. I am sure they are looking for cheap and simple as ever. But it is an illustration and concrete proof that a small investment can produce huge savings.

I think it's like asking someone who likes children to teach a class of them - they might be ok as a one off, but they don't know the curriculum, child development theory, safeguarding... ultimately, they could do more harm than good. The probation training ensures staff not only know what to do, but why they are doing it. We're talking about complex academic theories, backed up by research, which underpin everything we do. It breaks my heart when our experience and qualifications are dismissed as being something anyone could do.

Some might say we need an independent body to look after our professional interests like the BMA.

A mix of shock a CRC manager could be so contemptuous of us but also happy we could disprove such rubbish. But my question is - no one has had 45 cases for years - so how can this be studied? Has a study specifically been done on caseloads?

If it hasn't been done, how can there be real evidence produced on this specific issue? If not, could a study be set up for this purpose? Would need to be funded.

Great challenge I will post you mine and Xxxxxx's response over the weekend.

I can play football but does not mean I could manager a premiership or any team in a professional league and win. I would like to think I could make a good attempt but winning even a game would be very difficult, however If you are a trained football coach you are likely to have a better change you will have knowledge experiences and an understanding of different methods to improve your team and individuals. A football team is made up of a complex set of variables the better trained you are in the variables the better outcome you are likely to have.

What is the difference from being a trained PO and a trained football coach? Apart from the obverse the sentiment yes any one can do it but you will have a better chance if you are well trained. The main variable is how motivated is the person towards change. Do you have the particular knowledge to address the underlying issues. We need to be better trained, not less. Crazy CRC.

The problem with the organisation as it is that they are not willing to listen to any arguments whatsoever no matter how much evidence they are presented with. The attitude is pretty much "My way or the highway".

Pick of the Week 9

Summer 2016 is a lively one - EU referendum & 52% want to leave, Farage goes nuclear in Brussels, increase in overt racism, footie team in disgrace, Dodgy Dave resigning, probation services traded like Panini football cards ("got, got, want, need, got"), Labour in meltdown, Chilcott Report due 6 July...

I fear the narcissistic political navel gazing of both major political parties - fuelled by the venal media industry - whilst so many dreadful things are happening around them means the UK can never be taken seriously again. Friends around the world are asking me if Daesh might have poisoned the UK water supply with LSD.

*******
Wahaay! Gove stabs Boris in the back & puts up for PM, then May kicks Boris in the watercannons! And its only 10:30am...

*******
Working Links must have been near broke to sell themselves out to a venture capital firm. They must have some contract ownership protection with the Government or they would have been gone. It is clear to many that the German involvement means that they own WL and now the profits as they can fund the dismissals agenda then grab the salaries while service users can sod off. Edifying government subsidy back into Europe aren't we supposed to be out?

*******
The UK govt owned one third of Working Links. The statement refers to this rather than the 'Golden Share' which the govt retains in the CRC's.

*******
Aurelias and WL can speak with forked tongues and try to spin doctor everything but please don't expect intelligent and well educated people to swallow your bullshit. 'An exciting stage in our history'. What utter crap, do you think we were born yesterday! Absolutely disgraceful that Noms/MoJ have allowed this and the CRC managers just meekly allow it and echo hollow statements about positive opportunities. Aurelius and WL have absolutely no interest in the service users or in public protection. It is all about profit, spin and dirty dealing. How can the government allow our once proud public services to be sold, stripped down and re-sold in this tawdry manner? We are being trafficked and sold to the highest bidder. How can we be expected to do our job and protect the public under these circumstances? When will the government step in and put an end to this travesty of justice? Sadly I have little faith given the complete and utter shambles that the tories have left us in.

*******
WL letter to staff on Friday morning advising staff not to worry following Referendum result, followed in less than 3 working days with emergency early morning phone call to CRC Director. Was on annual leave today so unaware of staff phone call from CEO at 9.15am. Did anyone listen to it?

*******
Only heard the last few mins! A lot of ashen faces! We are already coping with so much change and more to come with TR. The thing that annoys me is the mask they put on, pretending it is all good news when we know basically WL had overstretched themselves and sold out to the highest bidder who has a beady eye on more lucrative prison contracts and will sell us on when they get those, maybe for a pound!

*******
My God this is shocking. Your depiction of that (G4S) meeting brings to mind some kind of mafia type leadership. And reference to human beings as 'products and goods'! Does that include the end product of deceased prisoners because we all know that suicide rates have gone through the roof. Human rights atrocities and a complete lack of humanity. Blatant cover ups and lies. We desperately need to put humanity at the heart of running prisons and probation. Current private sector have no interest in public protection either, it is off the menu!

*******
The 'acceptable' side of human trafficking? You would not condone a group locking people up, assaulting and verbally abusing them, keeping them in solitary for long stretches and ignoring their deteriorating mental state, allowing them to take harmful drugs! Unless they have a government contract and shareholders. Then it's ok! Shame on the government and shareholders!

*******
I have no faith that the current government will do anything to address this. If there is a major incident they might pull them out of a particular prison but that is all. They don't want to hinder the free market economy! One day however when there is a change of government there will be an enquiry and the full truth will come out just as the truth is going to come out with the Chilcott report.

*******
I could relate to it, of course, but agree it was not clear if PSO or PO. Please can this title be changed? It sounds as if he just walked into this job one day! Before I qualified as PO I had already worked with challenging group, young people in care. You do need to be emotionally strong in thus job. Also I recently spoke to a retired PO who was the risk management trainer. Note his final comment to me: 'statistically it is more often than not the so called low risk or 'green' cases that commit a serious offence resulting in investigation'. We would do well to remember that in a time when training is scarce and staff with the least experience could be left managing those so called low risk cases that can overnight morph into the subject of our worst nightmares!

*******
12 one-to-one appts, but "I spend more time documenting what I’ve done, detailing the intricacies of people’s lives and writing reports for courts and prisons, than I spend doing practical and helpful things for and with people."

12 x 30 mins is 6 hours, leaving 1 hour for recording contacts on 12 cases, referrals for programmes, all the "reports for courts & prisons", etc. Or...

12 x 15 mins is 3 hours, leaving a more realistic 4 hours for paperwork - IF the computer system is working. I would guess most service users find 15 mins the more accurate figure; and what can be done in 15 mins? Tick a box or two, perhaps?

Sadly I'm tempted to agree, i.e. some kind of pseudo-reality puff piece. And equally I share view about the naiive simplicity of attitude - we know that DV work, mental health issues, child protection or any of the issues raised by offending or a perpetrator's background can & do cause upset or distress. Professional supervision by experienced practitioners, if not managers, (sorely lacking in CRCs) should be available for precisely this reason, not just to dump on staff for missing targets. A recent post on this blog touched on this issue.

*******
A complete load of twaddle in my view. Working for the CRC and writing reports or working for NPS? must be in Court then...wait a minute Court officers don't hold cases. Not sure why they did this but for me it's saying that any Tom, Dick or Susan can walk in off the streets and do the job without training or experience!

*******
An imposter has written this - no way can a CRC case manager have up to 12 appts a day. Our reporting instructions are once per fortnight for the first 8 weeks and professional judgement thereafter but generally it's onto monthly then 8 weekly. In addition let's remember a caseload of 60 will no doubt have about 20 in custody so only 40 'active' cases to manage, take into account those in breach or on warrant and we are down to between 30 - 40 active cases. I have plenty of time to spend quality time and follow up referrals etc so whoever wrote the piece above is not managing their time properly.

*******
I think you will find that each CRC is doing things differently so we cannot speak for everyone. I am a PO with 50 cases. Only 4 in custody, 2 sentenced and 2 on remand for further alleged serious offences. Majority of my cases are DV now, so yes that does come with issues. I believe the article writer is a PSO or he/she would have more challenging cases! In one year I have risk escalated approx 5 cases from medium to high. This has involved further incidents of DV, child cruelty and GBH. I have made use of clinical counselling. CRC PO's and PSO's are managing risk on a daily basis. It is challenging and skilled work and the government hand it all over to unkilled staff and private companies at their peril.

*******
I'm very worried about a recent development in purple futures CRC. There is to be a quarterly audit covering the case has been adequately managed with: risk; contact; flaggers; sentence plan; enforcement. A random case file is to be selected and Delius and Oasys cross-referenced with the case by a senior colleague. If any concerns a further 5 random cases will be audited to see if there is a pattern in the poor management of cases or to see if the original file was a 'one off'. If there are concerns with the other 5 cases then capability is to be commenced! Fortunately for me I work with reasonable managers but if you're in an office where your face doesn't fit or whatever then this is the ideal way to manage people out of the company.

*******
Clearly nothing to worry about here. The PF Interchange Managers are so far behind in their knowledge about case management they will struggle to even know what they are looking for to even hold anyone to account. Their lack of experience with regards sentence planning and or case management etc etc are legendary, most are out of their depth. If you are doing what you are supposed to do, nothing to worry about.

*******
As if we're not under enough pressure. I've seen this on our Intranet - its basically a bean-counting exercise and giving someone in Head Office a justification for their scale 5 post. NAPO should be all over this.

*******
TTG is laughable; interventions are diminished, operating fewer accredited programmes less frequently with less experienced tutors and are more difficult to get to; the under 12 month cohort is an exercise in seeing how fast the revolving door can revolve before it comes off altogether; lean operating models = operating substandard, deprofessionalised or unsafe practices on a shoestring.

*******
Enrolled another guy on to a programme - waiting list so long I've no alternative but to take the Order back to court to extend so that this can happen. 40+ mile weekly round trip for him to attend the Programme for 18 weeks and it's ridiculous.

*******
Travel has always been a problem in areas like Devon and Cornwall, Northumbria etc. Nevertheless, it is clearly a fact that some areas have closed offices and people who used to go to local offices to receive a service, they now have to travel much greater distances. Also, timings of groups are compromised so the inconvenience to individuals is increased, thereby putting in barriers to successful completion. 

Long journeys ARE a problem but not just because of the inconvenience to individuals who live a long way from offices. Long journeys at the end of a working day with no time to eat, no refreshments on arrival. finishing late and then having a long journey home etc means offenders START the groups tired and will inevitably struggle to gain anything from them. Obviously, that no longer matters as the completion and resultant funding is the only objective that is now considered. If they actually benefit from them, well, that seems to be a fortunate by product rather than an intended consequence of attendance.

In short, you can justify any form of bad practice if your attitude is 'they committed an offence and this is the consequence/if you can't do the time....'. The purpose used to be to facilitate rehabilitation not to punish, restrict and just be mean to them because they deserve it.

As an ex-SPO (I took redundancy), I am simply appalled at the continued efforts of some to justify these cadaverous remains of service delivery. It's crap because it is underfunded and managed entirely by people who do not understand the work and who certainly don't value it. There will always be pockets of good practice and quiet little victories but, in terms of a strategic approach to working with offenders, what is left after TR is almost entirely a universal disgrace.

*******
Yep, in our area band 4 to be cut by 50% and band 3 just about the same. Looks like phone interviews on the way for the majority of clients. 

Re 3E - Any NPS people been given any indication of how many posts will be available in each section - ie three x band 4 and five x band 3 etc. Seems to me that this information is needed before making an informed decision. If it goes to competitive interview and, for instance, all OM posts are filled, then you face being shipped elsewhere. This could cause issues if care responsibility or travel issues.

Lastly, and I apologise if this seems insensitive given colleagues up and down the country are losing jobs, but the E3 guidance to managers says that whilst VER is not being offered, even if it were, then it would be a civil service scheme. Hence only backdated to the split in June 2014. How is it they are cherry picking? Local gov pension scheme, trusts policy on maternity but we are civil servants when it comes to losing all your years service if VER and also for being moved God knows where, in what ever job, if you are viewed as surplus. Give us the option of VER.

*******
There's supposed to be consistency in supervision? I had three supervisors before I left custody. All I got was an introductory letter from No 1, No 2 turned out to be a royal pain in the butt from the moment she took over and virtually all her decisions were over turned on legal challenge as she had made them on incorrect information she had been told by my legal team was incorrect. No 3 lasted until TR came in and she left (and I breathed a huge sigh of relief when she did as she was worse than No 2). No 4 is nice enough but to be honest an ineffectual idiot with some very weird ideas of the prison system and people. Not exactly consistency and this was pretty much all before probation was privatised.

*******
Consistency hasn't been present since the fiddling around & transfer to Trust status etc began some 10 years ago. I'd suggest you set yourself a specific goal you want to achieve & work whoever is supervising your release into helping you get there. They'll be so overworked with so many other hopeless, demanding cases they'll be grateful for your initiative.

*******
Actually I've learned the best policy regarding probation is to say as little as possible, never volunteer anything and never discuss anything personal. It makes "supervision" a lot less stressful for both of us. It also points up the fact that probation is now simply a tick box exercise with any idea of actual help long out of the door.

*******
I am surprised there has been very little comment on the post E3 briefings taking place at the moment across the country as they begin to prepare staff for what is, in effect a massive sifting process to weed out colleagues who do not 'match' the current profile of the new E3 landscape. Don't be fooled, wake up, do something about it - the future of the service is at stake. What's NAPO and UNISON doing about it ? The E3 body count, for those unfortunate to end up on the redeployment register will make unpalatable reading as any assurance given that redundancies will not apply will look hollow as it dawns on those affected that it's simply a fig leaf to promote greater effeciencies, and flexibility and turnover at a time of limited resources. I am resigned to think that with all its emphasis on 1:1 preferences, it is sadly time to acknowledge that the service we once cherished has irrevocably changed for the worse.

*******
Prisoners received minimal contact and service from community PO's so change is inevitable. But progress will be dependent on prisons being able to deal with change instead of daily chaos that currently persists. End to end management was an aspiration that was never going to work and didn't.

*******
I have already received my notification of 121 via a formal letter which was e-mailed to me. There is a form to fill in which you have to put any considerations you wish to be taken into account in respect of relocation. My 121 is booked in with my manager for next week. A colleague in the prison told me they are expecting lots more OM's in April so I am expecting some relocations.

*******
On a slightly different topic, news from SWM CRC where a third of POs in Staffordshire/Stoke are facing compulsory redundancy. The axe has been hanging over PO's heads for over 7 months with those deemed to be 'at risk', heading towards their 3rd stage interview this Friday. At 4 pm yesterday they all received an e mail stating that these interviews had been 'postponed indefinitely'. What the hell does this mean? Will there or won't there be redundancies and if not why all the shannanigans over the past 7 months with colleagues facing the prospect of the dole queue on a daily basis (Stoke is still in the depths of an economic turndown, not an easy area to find employment). 

Colleagues are baffled by this turn of events and from senior managers there is deafening silence. Does this mean no redundancies or is this just a temporary stay of execution? If the former, does this mean that the CRC has cocked up the figures and needs these PO posts? Or, as is suspected, has the CRC run out of money to fund redundancy payments and needs to find a cheaper means of shedding staff? POs and their colleagues need answers from these conniving and cruel senior execs. The staff in Staffs/Stoke are deserve better treatment than this.

*******
On the prison walkouts - I understand the only way the prison service addresses the issue is to seek an injuction to force officers back onto the landings. The longer it takes the longer they stay out . Holme House was locked down until dinnertime, meanwhile every operational and non operational governor is redirected to help with essentials like food and meds.... The Government would rather this happen than meaningfully addressing very serious safety issues.....shame.

*******
Whether the unions are in dispute or not here in the SW Working Links/Aurelius are moving fast now! Staff are already coping with sudden moves to inferior offices and having to see service users in public spaces. IT/delius being unavailable much of the time. Now suddenly the timescale for these one to one interviews is about 7 weeks, just when many will be on holidays! Looks more like 50% cuts to band 3, 4 and 5. Senior staff have at least stopped pretending everything is 'positive change' now they are also going to be reduced by by 50%! So suddenly we have gone from 'cuts won't be as bad as expected because many have already gone to another 50%'. Never mind the unions, why are the MoJ sat on their not unsubstantial sterns and allowing this to happen? We might as well scrap the whole notion of community sentences and just ask NPS court staff to give people SSO's in all cases without supervision!

*******
MoJ knew this was coming in all CRCs so they're not bothered. The MoJ/NOMS 'CRC police' are not interested. Gove is distracted by his own vainglorious ambition. NOMS are also rudderless vis-a-vis probation with Allars' jumping ship.

*******
This whole 1-1 charade absolutely mirrors the TR debacle ... Do you want CRC or NPS? Your decision but we aren't giving you any information to make an informed choice. This is just the same, Court or stay in your role. Prisons haven't been mentioned yet but that is where a lot of POs are heading. I understand that the plan is to increase PO numbers in prison. There is absolutely no way they are gonna send me down that route until they have made prisons safer for staff. Our local prisons, S Yorks, are losing the battle with Spice. Not enough prison officers and prisoners off their heads on drugs ... Not a good combo and certainly not an environment that I'm going to work in. Working in NPS with stupidly high caseload, crap IT system, when it's working, low morale and high levels of staff sickness is bad enough. I cannot believe that this is a career that I was once proud of. It is an utter disgrace. Shame on the government for putting us in this abysmal situation.

*******
These redundancies are no surprise to NOMS/MoJ as they would have been in the original bids. The arguments being put forward are the same as those that were presented in the Sodexo areas. They don't understand the issues and don't have the slightest interest in the concerns of NAPO or of staff in general. They want their money. That is the only real consideration and everything else is secondary to that. Maintain the illusion and keep the criticism away from the Minister. That is the only mantra. Good practice and effectiveness are entirely peripheral.

*******
The tribulations in the South West are typical of what's going on elsewhere: a refusal by management to engage in collective discussions with the unions and an insistence on one-to-one meetings with individuals. In effect this removes one of the workers' protections: that afforded by collective agreements. The union still has it's voice: it can issue advice to members about what to say in meetings, etc, but we all know that in such meeting the power lies with the management representative.

The unions can still bark and talk up their role, but there is no bite and so management have an unrestrained hand to do whatever they wish. The CRCs are making it abundantly clear that the unions are no longer relevant to their plans. In the CRCs you are on your own - 1 to 1 - and that's how it is in every workplace when individuals fail to act in solidarity.

*******
You're naïve 1-1 unfairly and innapropriatly conducted outside of a recognised collective agreement that results in dismissals will automatically become an unfair dismissal claim. Legal process contract of employment. It is not all management owned. The trade unions in this arena seem to be carefully playing their hand and from what I understand the General Secretary and his team are doing a skilled job. Your post smacks of management support are you pro this destructive attempt to rid skilled staff.

*******
I am afraid that you are the naive one. Sodexo easily bypassed collective agreements and chose to deal with individuals and not the unions. This talk of tribunals is hot air. I am not aware of a single tribunal thus far despite all the shenanigans over the past 12 months or so. Stop telling us how Napo is skillfully playing its hand - we have heard all this before as well and all I see is a losing hand. The CRCs don't give a toss about collective agreements.

*******
The above replies seem to suggest there is no point in continuing to fight the CRC's despite the fact that the three branches in WL have now come together to lodge a dispute. I think it is great that this has happened and shows that some are still attempting to act in solidarity to beat this.

*******
Mr Wiseman is a puppet dependant on what he is told by WL Management and their Lawyers. The fact is whatever has gone before there is now a dispute in place and yes WL are going ahead with their plans, BUT NAPO/UNISON & GMB SCCOP are in this together.

*******
E3 Efficiency, Effectiveness and Excellence - Focus on the new OM Custody Model

Whilst there is merit harmonisation, the work being done on E3 is not just about 'after the door has bolted' This spells out C3 Cuts, Cuts, Cuts for the NPS.With harmonisation of processes as well as job roles, coupled with 'estates strategy' where NPS are finding themselves rattling around buildings that previously held all Probation staff, workforce planning as well as the 'OM Custody Model' the time is approaching where the anticipated cuts within NPS will be hitting home.

The new custody model talks of 'greater continuity between court, prison and community OM work'. A principle with the new OM Custody Model is 'the responsibility for custodial OM should sit with the prison', therefore there is going to be a shift of staffing resource from the community into the prison, with case management responsibility firmly sitting with the prison. The role for SPOs within the prison looks to diminish unless the Head of OMU is competed for and ultimately reporting to the prison governor.

Reading between the lines this smells of further reduced roles for NPS staff in prisons (we have already seen programme tutors in prison as well as PSOs roles in the prison going) specifically the New OM Model implies loss of senior NPS roles in prison and potentially staff transferring over to the Prison Service. The proposed development will be out for consultation with Probation, Prison Unions and staff to design and plan this new 'specialised service'; is it any wonder that previous prison Governors are being drafted in to CRCs particularly where there is a private prison nearby. Watch this space, the next few months could be crucial, hopefully NAPO will not sleep walk into collusion on this one, this isn't just about about roles/responsibilities/harmonisation, it's about C3 Cuts, Cuts, Cuts.

As I wave goodbye to colleagues in the CRC who are losing their jobs, it strikes me this is the start of a long road of goodbyes which will cover CRCs, NPS, YOS and Prison staff without taking into consideration cutbacks due for the Civil Service in general. We need to keep a close eye on what is happening in all the respective unions if we are to be one step ahead of these changes and be United, when you read E3 look behind the rhetoric and you will see 3C Cuts!

*******
Cherish your SPO for they are a dying breed. New plans under discussions to replace them with the social service model of the Senior practitioner - therefore getting all the SPO tasks done on the cheap whilst still holding a caseload. ACE's are also in the firing line as their salaries are equivalent to 1.5 POs.

*******
Probation used to have Senior Pracs at Band 5 around 10yrs ago. Was one until role disbanded in favour of more SPO's and Band 6 Managers. Later, in 2011 was down-banded to Band 4! Whatever suits the day and no real rationale for pay bands. Suppose these new SP's will be at Band 4 and supervising PSO's, along with own caseload of higher risk CRC cases? SPO roles at risk.

*******
Michael Spurr: It was a huge part of this programme and one that, I think, that had general support. There were lots of parts of this programme that were not generally supported but, in Parliament, and actually professionally, and with our trade union partners, everybody recognised the importance of trying to do something different with this short sentence offender group."

Salesman: "Do you see how quickly & effectively the snake oil soothes your ailments? Everyone agrees it is a miraculous cure."

*******
Giga-shambles from Day One! The left hand and the right hand in our CRC clearly don't even belong to the same organism, as we have received various contrary emails over the last two weeks regarding third-stage redundancy meetings (originally mooted in January 2016) - everything now put on hold yet again, at the eleventh hour - our 'owners'/managers/failed bankers or whatever they are have only had six months to get the actual figures right.. words fail me - any vague notion of Probation as a career is in tatters. How much worse can it actually get - really?! Useless gits with no idea of the work we do.

*******
Uh? So we now have an unexpected & sudden high rate of sexual & violent crime than ever before? A significant & fundamental change of offending behaviour that was neither predicted nor accounted for by the highly paid consultants & experts who drew up the TR contracts?

And this is why TTG is failing... Because TR is a crock of PR shite. Their lies are finding them out at the expense of everyone else, i.e. loss of employment, loss of professional service provision & loss of public money. Spurr even says they are about to hand even more public money over to the CRCs by way of "compensation" because of the IT f*ck-up. They weren't so keen to honour the EVR package for long-serving professionals. Arseholes!

*******
The recent upgrade of Delius is being blamed for terminated cases raising from the dead!! Printed my caseload & enforcement off today and lots of blasts from the past appear. haha

*******
Reminds me of the post-war reconstruction in Iraq. They wanted regime change, so they go in and rip out the infrastructure of a probation service that was working – and winning awards. They promise that their rehabilitation revolution will lead to a better world. It is plainly not working. The probation service has been eviscerated, morale is rock bottom; the prison service is in anarchic mood and finally, making a stand, complaining that the Noms will not engage in meaningful consultation on proposed reforms under E3. The leaders of this unholy mess scratching around to offer explanations and justifications to a Parliamentary committee. These leaders, like naked emperors, have lost their grip on the system and can only speculate how CRCs will come up with innovative solutions as they cut jobs and then recruit temporary case managers, as Purple Futures are doing in Hampshire. Meanwhile, dear leader Gove becomes a figure of scorn and derision.

*******
I have to say you have nailed it. Let us take PF as the supposedly great CRC provider. I attended, along with hundreds of my collegues, in April 2015, an event that was held in a very plush, well known racecourse by Yvonne Thomas and her bright young things who produced a full days worth of slick corporate presentations promising a brave new world. This was to be service user focused, inovative offence reducing models; all backed up by a 21st century IT system to be envied. 

Well, let us, the PF family take a look see. 15 months later, we still have no IT system except that trusty old warhorse N Delius. I really need say no more about that pony!! So as inovative POs/PSOs (Senior Case Managers and Case Managers we are now titled), what do we do? We revert back to our tried and trusted Mark 1 laptops (notepad and pen to the layman). At least the good old bic does not break down and when I drop my mark 1, it can still function. Even when my client spills his coffee on it, still it works. 

The real estate that supports us is still in development, some offices have been stripped out and are nothing but shells, yet we still deliver this new inovative interchange model in shabby environments. Without irony, humour, and good old belief in 'probation' we would have all gone home by now, but we persevere. Maybe they will deliver, maybe not, who knows. The truth is that PF has at best been treading water for the best part of 2 years or at worst..... well I leave that for others to comment.

*******
Most of this is rubbish! The usual suits in their ivory towers (ivory being a good metaphor for corruption) spin doctoring and trying to persuade people that their so called new flexible approaches work. Come and shadow a CRC PO at the coal face. Compare how things were only 6 months ago with the titanic rupturing of our organisation now. Follow me into our new premises where I see service users with complex problems amongst the general public who stare and point when they present with typical behaviour associated with ADHD, asbergers, mental health condition, drug dependency etc. Very little private interview space. 

Service user with paranoia who cannot cope with new interview space and waiting in full view of public. IT crashing and cutting out after 4 hours, colleagues off sick and being left to manage on my own. Being told that cuts will mean half of us are going! I can cope with change, I am still here, but please do not insult us by telling us 'this is for the best and being done to improve standards and flexibility'. The suits all know this is not working and austerity is not working but they carry on regardless. 

The trusts DID work and they were managed by chiefs that we could respect, they had the authority to speak out and they were in touch with their staff. Now we have puppet CPO's at CRC who appear to be either completely demoralised or who have been brainwashed by their corrupt financial employer, Sodexo or WL or is that now Aurelius?! Once they have got you to do their dirty work you will be deleted along with 50% of the workforce. Once the MoJ /NOMS finally realise the game is up, they will be faced with a completely asset stripped organisation and workforce and it will take decades to recover! 

There is no internal training provision now, not even in basic risk assessment. Who will want to train to be a PO under the current system? I predict that in the future we will need to return to how it was 20 years ago, PO training coming under the umbrella of social work training with probation placements and additional syllabus and an expectation that you work in related field before you train, not just fresh from uni!

*******
This insistence that the mix of cases has changed really gets my goat. It hasn't! They counted wrongly in the first place and simply did not understand what the word reoffending means. It's a small number of people committing a lot of crime. They hadn't worked out that the number of sentences passed is not the same as the number of people in the system. I know of one case now subject to 12 PSS licences. That revolving door has started spinning an awful lot faster since the introduction of supervision for under 12 month cases.

*******
I remember Michael Spurr at a Napo AGM – pre-TR - telling us that like it or loath it, TR was the will of a democratically elected government and therefore it was his and our duty to implement. There was a reasonable logic to his position, but his position was superficial. It was not his job, like intelligence analysts telling prime ministers what they wanted to hear, to do likewise with his political masters, it was his job as a senior civil servant, to make it crystal clear that TR as envisaged would not work and at the minimum it should be piloted. Spurr is not a stupid man, he knew it would result in fragmentation and poor coordination, he also knew that without additional funding TTG would fail. What is the point of paying senior civil servants high salaries if all they do is mechanically follow orders? The Spurrs of this world are ten a penny – unlike those civil servants with principles like Elizabeth Wilmhurst, Clive Ponting, Katharine Gun, Edward Snowdon.

*******
We in the NPS are having a different but equally bad time of it with the headless rush to implment E3 with all involved having the knowledge that it's about deskilling staff and getting it done on the cheap....still the mess that HMPS is in will surely put it back another 18 months or so.

*******
NPS, can you be more specific about what the effect of E3 is? Ok, I can understand you are worried but my own ex colleagues at NPS are still sat in decent offices with plenty of spare interview rooms now that CRC have been booted out. They are not sat in a hot and claustrophobic room with insufficient desk space and NO disabled access so colleagues with disabilities are unable to go! They are also not in a shop front without toilets and have to use public loos across the road! They always have private interview rooms and do not have to see service users in public buildings! How can this even be allowed NOMS/MOJ. Hello...are you listening? CRC staff are being forced to interview offenders about their DV offences in libraries! You don't believe me, then ask WL! There will be alot of staff ready to spill the beans when they are made redundant so no longer have to fear upsetting the boss!

*******
So Noms/MoJ. Are you happy for me to go ahead and cancel some of my appointments over the summer period because DV offenders now report to CRC in a large public library which is likely to put them and victims at risk as they could turn up at same time? I am assuming that there was a risk assesment in terms of suitability of buildings and that you approved? Also, if an offender is angry and leaves suddenly, I have to follow them out of the room and swipe my card to let them out, thus putting myself at risk. When someone gets hurt in these public reporting centres or open booths, MoJ/Noms will be taken to the cleaners and get what they deserve. It is only a matter of time before something errupts and your TR shambles will come to light for all to see.