A (very) rough guide to low and medium risk of harm for non probation blog followers: Low = no indicators of risk of serious harm (ie the potential to seriously harm or kill) a child, a member of the public, a member of staff, or a known individual. Medium = there ARE indicators of the potential for serious harm if something CHANGES.
Are CRCs, broken away from court teams and other colleagues, being able to access only part of the probation database, carrying high caseloads, people being shunted off into groups (where they can simply share and collude with pro criminal associates if they so choose), and monitored by telephone - with the best will in the world - going to spot those changes that might indicate increasing risk?
PLEASE SAVE PROBATION from this ill-conceived dangerous experiment which is nothing to do with reducing re-offending and everything to do with the artificial creation of profit and the professional jealousy of a certain type of privileged, petulant career politicians who do not understand those who wish to contribute to a fair and just society by working not for profit but with good will, a belief in the value of their aims, with integrity and without dumb, meaningless, time consuming bureaucratic diktat which prevents them from getting on with the job of protecting the public.
******
Post Sentence Assessment - PSA was a bit like OASys. Supposed to be sophisticated and flexible, and so the designers went into the market place and found that nobody wanted to buy it, because it was in fact, rubbish and complex. A type of PSA is indeed what new providers will have to use, and God help them and us. It was and is a total disaster in West Yorkshire.
******
I concur with above. ....PSA is an omWYshambles and any notion of coherence has now fallen apart!
******
PSA in WY is I agree pants, POINTLESS, STUPID, ARSEHOLES invented it. The bloke who put it through fucked off ages ago and is probably sunning himself on his pay off.
******
I agree. I am so limited on what I can propose to the Courts with PSA in West Yorks. No supervision unless high risk, pointless putting down an activity (formerly known as Accredited programmes) cos they are so over whelmed since PSA kicked in they can't fit everyone in and they are knocking folk back cos they don't have the OGRE's score anyway.
No anger management activity running for the foreseeable future. A year or more before sex offenders get put on the SOTP, that's if they don't knock them back cos the shitty RM2000 says no. (HAPPENING MORE AND MORE THESE DAYS.) Can't propose a DRR for those over the RSR threshold as no NPS STAFF in DRR team. DOH! I find myself investigating, assessing for PSR's, working out why they did the offence like I am paid to do, then vaguely apologising to the Court that I can't propose bugger all for 'em. It's a travesty and makes a mockery of my training.
******
On another note about this disaster are the voices of victims of crime. I am a long serving PO with 17 years experience. My family were a victim of crime this weekend. We rang the police and are still waiting to see if anyone arrives. Fortunately a neighbour witnessed the crime and we have a name. So lets see what happens. The person in question may be arrested depending on whether the CPS sees it as an offence worthy of the criminal justice system. The person may go to court and then see an overworked Court officer undertake an FDR.
The report will be rushed together with a conclusion bordering on a fine possibly or some other sentence relating to their drug dependency. Off they go to the CRC or NPS depending on their risk and bingo, never seen much again due to the chaos of case management and this ridiculous TR agenda. Thanks Mr Grayling our bill for the damage is on the way to your office!!!! Give a thought in your TOM 3 or 4 or 5 version, of the victims perspective because as we know not much will happen if you are a victim of crime in this appalling agenda.
******
I have sat in a magistrates court and heard on several occasions District Judges complain to CPS that defendants have been 'undercharged' particularly in relation to assaults. This is something else the CRC have to contend with. People who should be in NPS but due to undercharging and/or basis of plea stuff, going to CRC.
******
Bidders if u r reading this blog, please get out while you can. I don't think you have any idea of the complexities you will be dealing with. Never mind a system that has been ruined by the split and not fit for purpose IT systems. If you are hoping to make a fast buck, think again.
******
Latest from the frontline: client dead, paperwork a priority, PO "in the shit for not completing relevant form", CRC management furious about Kevingate being damaging to share sale, disabled not worthy of £2 a week, NPS have no idea what happened at Crown Court because they're too stressed to give a shit - and my piles are itchy today. Tweet that.
******
No, seriously, they are REALLY itchy. I know this ain't "embarrassing bodies" or something but before TR I never knew what itchy stress-related conditions were. Now, well let me tell you I don't sleep well, I sleep in the spare room. I wake every hour with sweats and needing to pee, I ache in the morning, I itch in places I wished I didn't, I yawn all day, and my colleagues have started to not ask me out for drinks, coffee, meals, etc.
Maybe its time to review (a) my meds (b) my career and (c) my choice of shampoo.
******
Midlands area NPS have been warned about posting things on social media.
******
There's a climate of fear... People chained to their desks too frightened to speak out... SOUND FAMILIAR?
******
I was told ages ago 'remember you are a civil servant now .. You can't be seen to criticise the government publicly on social media'.
******
A new Trainee Probation Officer joined the NPS in our office today. Its another kick in the teeth that probably in 18 months she will be employed as a PO in the NPS which I'm not able to do. Surely there should be a case for constructive dismissal? I am now unable to under take the role that I trained for, even though they see now advertising for NPS PO's. I know I could apply but none of those sifted had to apply for their jobs.
******
I feel the same. If there was a legal challenge to be had, would taking this forward as a group of POs make a difference to TR do you think?
******
We have had two new trainees in our office start today too. I know it's not their fault but the government's, but I feel bad for those POs who cos they were put in CRC and didn't want to be there, can't do a lot of the job they were trained to do.
******
We got the shittier end of the stick alright. These new entrants will get the nod ahead of us. We can't apply for the new NPS prison jobs and NPS OM's are lining up to get trained in SOTP whilst my 8 years experience goes to waste. Oh, and we'll be expected to train up the newbies when the CRC placements eventually get sorted.
******
The thought of training up NPS TPO's makes my blood boil. I'm aware it's not their fault, but why should I spend my time training someone to do a job that I'm no longer allowed to do? If there's a need for new officers in the NPS, then why are CRC PO's not allowed to transfer over?
The trouble is, I see no room for development in a CRC - the vast majority of specialisms are in the NPS and if you're in the CRC and don't want to work in a field team, then you have nowhere to go.
******
There are no 'opportunities' in the CRC and that's before share sale. Just imagine what it'll be like post.
******
We have the opportunity to see our roles slowly eroded before our eyes.
******
Once the multinationals are in then POs in CRC needn't worry about seeing their roles eroded cos they'll be gone; too expensive. Replacements will be recruited for less. HMP Northumberland is the model - expensive prison officers shovelled out the gates within 24 hours of Sodexo taking the reins, then new jobs advertised not many weeks later at 60% of the previous rate of pay. Bye bye experience; hello cost cutting.
£30k for a PO holding 50 cases or two PSOs holding 100 cases between them for £36k? Economies of scale - 1000 cases now costs £360k, not £600k. Over a ten year contract you've saved £millions. You only need a Team Manager to have 'oversight' of the DV stuff (because as we know everything else is lower end risk, the scary shit's with NPS) & your Poundsaver Service is complete. Ker-ching!
Shareholders - happy; Accountants - happy; Grayling - happy; Spartacus - not best pleased.
Showing posts with label Post Sentence Assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Post Sentence Assessment. Show all posts
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Saturday, 22 February 2014
Post Sentence Assessment - Trojan Horse?
Yet again this blog throws up a fascinating discussion, this time on the West Yorkshire initiative called 'Post Sentence Assessment'. I first heard about this in 2012 and started to write about it, but it ended up languishing in a long-forgotten corner of the laptop, until today that is. This is what I was going to say about it back then:-
I was recently alerted to some discussion on the NAPO forum pages concerning an interesting sentencing initiative 'Post Sentence Assessment' up there in West Yorkshire. I'm told that the recent NAPO conference in York was treated to a workshop by their Director of Operations Mark Siddall who made a fleeting appearance at the tail end and thus was sadly unable to take a more active part in proceedings.
It seems that during a somewhat pedestrian powerpoint presentation he was nevertheless able to offer some fascinating insights into how he took on both the senior judges of Leeds and Bradford in a 'he who dares wins' encounter over dinner. Referring to 'eye watering' exchanges with the judges, he apparently quoted 'chapter and verse' when they suggested that what was being proposed might not be legal. If true, a particularly risky strategy at the best of times I would have thought. He reported that both the Ministry of Justice and NOMS had concerns also, but the scheme has been running since January and of course if it delivers as promised, shall we say it does nicely accord with government policy, whether it's strictly legal or not.
Well of course things have moved on considerably and clearly West Yorkshire felt they'd struck gold because I'm told they tried to sell their brilliant idea to other bemused Trusts, but with no success. By the way, even though Mark Siddall seems to be very happy taking all the credit for the wheeze, I'm also told that it wasn't his brainwave at all, but rather that of Sarah Jarvis who left for pastures new over the Pennines shortly afterwards.
Interestingly, another source tells me that when Jeremy Wright paid a visit to West Yorkshire he latched onto PSA straight away and could immediately see how it could be a key part of the TR omnishambles. So, well done West Yorks!
Anyway, I'm not going to say much more on a subject I know little about and will let the comment thread from yesterday take up the story:-
I'd just like to make a mention of what someone put as a comment on yesterday's blog. It is regarding West Yorkshire's Post Sentence Assessment. What I understand there is that instead of having a year's Supervision Requirement, say, they are proposing something like a 20 day Specified Activity Requirement and expecting offenders to attend 20 times within the 12 months of the Community Order.
The problem I have heard, loud and clear, is that most of these Orders are ended without the Days actually being completed. Indeed many Orders have very few 'Days' completed because people don't get on programmes or groups and aren't seen when they are on waiting lists, or just aren't suitable for working in groups, or don't turn up. An FOI request would be interesting to help clarify the evidence, but I hear that senior managers have as much as admitted this and blamed front line staff.
The problem for any privateers if working this way would be if they then tried to close the case on NDelius at the 12 month mark and took payment, they would be open to claims of fraud in the same way that Serco are now on tagging contracts. In fact, I think the way that PSA is structured makes this almost inevitable. If West Yorkshire's way becomes a cornerstone of TR through the creation of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements the future is perilous for private companies. Much better for them to have Supervision and Programme Requirements.
In my mind, any such contracted PSA system in private hands would lead to high levels of media scrutiny, reputational damage and possible criminal investigation. Let's face it, we can't currently end 200 hours of UPW when only 130 had been completed. To claim the 200 hours would be fraud, so the future of contracts looks very troubled indeed if government and companies go down this route.
*************************
But if WY aren't completing Orders, shouldn't we know how much or how many are being completed? This would give a baseline of what existing staff can provide and give contractors an idea of how much performance they would need to add to meet their contracts? Am I missing something here? Sounds like an FOI request to me.
**********************
You need to read up on the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. In effect this signals the end of court imposed specified activities, giving all the discretion to the CRC provider to determine the programme of supervision.
A successful completion will be getting to the end of the order, not completing the actual number of days which are simply set as a maximum. This does not affect unpaid work or treatment requirements. This is supposed to free up the new providers to do what works for rehabilitation.
************************
The WY PSA model, was I think, an early attempt to shape CRC work. Community Orders for whatever period may have 15 activity days, 30, 50 or 60. Nothing in between. It is true that Supervision as a Requirement, is not actively sought in the majority of cases, generally reserved for Sexual Offenders and DV cases; who continue to get fairly long periods on a Community Order, coupled with interventions such as NSOG (60) or Building Better Relationships (50) both High Activity Requirements, or Safer Relationships (30).
The low/med risk cases complete their activity days, based on Post Sentence Assessment and may include; 8 x OB groupwork sessions (Action for Change) 2 x Victim Awareness Module, 6 x ETE sessions, 10 x sessions with a drug/alcohol support group/intervention, or Hate Crime Module, Drink Driving Group etc etc. I'm sure you get the idea. Once the sessions/activity days are complete you can terminate the case - it is done, as there is no supervision activity to continue for the full 12 months. SSSO, Curfews, AC's and UPW can stand alone.
There are however serious administration issues associated with the PSA which WY are trying to get sorted. The original idea was to reduce the number of 1-1 supervision orders, that is for sure. However, to monitor the system, you need to record, contacts etc under the right line in NDelius and this is easier said than done. You need a procedure, that everyone buys into and fully understands; and it assumes other partner organisations etc will give you information re: attendance etc.
A major problem of PSA, from my perspective is that there are not enough activities running in order to get clients through their court orders, quickly, whilst motivation remains high and if there is no supervision, you lose people. Long, very long waiting lists for Sex Offender Treatment, for instance means that more of what would be group work or interventions work, is having to be done by OM's and in my view being put onto 'pathways' to treatment, which are driven by numbers, as opposed to the appropriateness of the clients passage into treatment. For example, rather than do a core programme, OM's do the initial 4 sessions and the men, as they are men, are fast tracked into Better Lives, or Relapse Prevention, whatever you want to call it.
It is/was a brave attempt to focus attention, provide a wide variety of interventions and to retain the respect of the judiciary, but just because they have done away with National Standards in favour of professional judgement and desistence, the staff resources to run programmes, groups etc are just not there.
WYT are getting tough on staff, printing off charts to demonstrate failings in recording etc which may reflect badly on PSA, but in reality, the performance charts are artificial, as the monitoring system makes no allowances for things we cannot actually achieve, with the best will in the world and so all it does is demoralise staff.
Now if you fling all this into the mix of Crams to delius, new templates for everything, r-oasys, all of which are still throwing up all kinds of glitches, and TR on top....I am surprised WY staff have battled on, or maybe we are just ahead of the game, and things can hardly get any worse.
********************
You put in a lot of detail in there, and I kind of followed it (some of it), and thanks for trying to explain it. But doesn't all the evidence suggest that it is one to one work and relationships that makes the difference? Not groups, activities and blunt interventions? That is my experience and I think it's the message of desistance research. Sounds like you are trying to get square pegs in round holes...that surely is a very expensive route to failure. Maybe a Freedom of Information request might prove or disprove that?.
********************
Sounds reminiscent of a work fare type scenario whereby a schedule of tasks was presented to the claimant by the PbR agency to facilitate eligibility for benefits. The catch? It was never achievable. Not meeting the criteria led to sanction, whereas anyone claiming to have completed all the tasks was sanctioned (& in some cases referred for prosecution) for fraud. The financial benefit to the agency was its success in detecting fraudulent claims, a prized criteria worth more than being successful with the client.
The wiles of the cash hungry are beyond our wildest imaginations. And even holier-than-thou MPs like Blunkett take the shilling.
Maybe we pay a retainer to our most innovative clients in return for ideas as to how to maximise profit in the shark infested world of dodgy business?
**********************
I started the thread re WYPT and 'PSA'. I am guessing that anon at 20:57 is currently employed by the same Trust . .too much inside information to be an outsider. My aim was not to educate re 'Activity Requirements' . . you'll all get that soon enough! but more to highlight the extent to which senior management has colluded with MOJ in the whole process of TR.
Vast resources, both staff and finance, have been pumped into making sure PSA is up and running. Alongside this similar resources have been used to make a 'Mutual' bid for the CRC. 'PSA' had been in the planning for months before roll out and needed the authority from Judges in the WY area. Similarly specialist 'low risk' teams were created and PSO's were recruited on temporary contracts specifically to manage low risk service - users.
I sat in a briefing with Mark Siddall (ops director) as far back as Jan 2012 when he was actively promoting PSA / Activity Req's as the future . . .we would be experts in delivery....we should be careful as to whom we shared our knowledge . . .we would be needed to deliver the model to other areas . . .and yes . . .we would be able to sell our expertise.
I'm now getting to my point! How did he know all this so long ago? Given that this whole thing was his baby, recognition at Buck Palace etc; why, just when he could bathe in all its glory, does he decide to take early retirement? Why did Sue Hall accept a senior position with CRC only to pull out days later ?
Something doesn't add up. People know more than they are telling. Please will at least one CEO or the like, spill the beans. It will inevitably "come out in the wash" but timing could be crucial.
Just to finish . . .all this gratis TR preparation work in W. Yorks was done with the full knowledge of both NAPO and Unison. I was sat next to my Union rep in the very briefing I refer to above!
*************************
I read about WYPT with interest but can't help feeling you should be looking to Durham and Teesside Trust for the forerunner for the CRC model. All offenders complete the 10 session (but could take up to 16 with reviews) Citizenship Programme with the OM either PO or PSO grade dependent on ROH. They then pass onto a CSS officer (not Tier 4, MAPPA, CP or DV cases) who is a PSO grade and can hold 100 cases, there are examples of this. Supervision can then include using bulk reporting centres staffed by volunteers (yes truly).
I bet the MOJ have watched this model with interest. I hear practitioners were very concerned about the Citizenship Programme but it was imposed with a very tight fist by the exec team. No-one gets to know their offenders they are simply processed and then move on. When their Chief Exec also became Cumbria's Chief he tried to impose this model on them but as he was less influential there - not having appointed the exec team himself - it did not happen. This model has been running in Durham for three years so there is a lot of data on it available.
I was recently alerted to some discussion on the NAPO forum pages concerning an interesting sentencing initiative 'Post Sentence Assessment' up there in West Yorkshire. I'm told that the recent NAPO conference in York was treated to a workshop by their Director of Operations Mark Siddall who made a fleeting appearance at the tail end and thus was sadly unable to take a more active part in proceedings.
It seems that during a somewhat pedestrian powerpoint presentation he was nevertheless able to offer some fascinating insights into how he took on both the senior judges of Leeds and Bradford in a 'he who dares wins' encounter over dinner. Referring to 'eye watering' exchanges with the judges, he apparently quoted 'chapter and verse' when they suggested that what was being proposed might not be legal. If true, a particularly risky strategy at the best of times I would have thought. He reported that both the Ministry of Justice and NOMS had concerns also, but the scheme has been running since January and of course if it delivers as promised, shall we say it does nicely accord with government policy, whether it's strictly legal or not.
Well of course things have moved on considerably and clearly West Yorkshire felt they'd struck gold because I'm told they tried to sell their brilliant idea to other bemused Trusts, but with no success. By the way, even though Mark Siddall seems to be very happy taking all the credit for the wheeze, I'm also told that it wasn't his brainwave at all, but rather that of Sarah Jarvis who left for pastures new over the Pennines shortly afterwards.
Interestingly, another source tells me that when Jeremy Wright paid a visit to West Yorkshire he latched onto PSA straight away and could immediately see how it could be a key part of the TR omnishambles. So, well done West Yorks!
Anyway, I'm not going to say much more on a subject I know little about and will let the comment thread from yesterday take up the story:-
I'd just like to make a mention of what someone put as a comment on yesterday's blog. It is regarding West Yorkshire's Post Sentence Assessment. What I understand there is that instead of having a year's Supervision Requirement, say, they are proposing something like a 20 day Specified Activity Requirement and expecting offenders to attend 20 times within the 12 months of the Community Order.
The problem I have heard, loud and clear, is that most of these Orders are ended without the Days actually being completed. Indeed many Orders have very few 'Days' completed because people don't get on programmes or groups and aren't seen when they are on waiting lists, or just aren't suitable for working in groups, or don't turn up. An FOI request would be interesting to help clarify the evidence, but I hear that senior managers have as much as admitted this and blamed front line staff.
The problem for any privateers if working this way would be if they then tried to close the case on NDelius at the 12 month mark and took payment, they would be open to claims of fraud in the same way that Serco are now on tagging contracts. In fact, I think the way that PSA is structured makes this almost inevitable. If West Yorkshire's way becomes a cornerstone of TR through the creation of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements the future is perilous for private companies. Much better for them to have Supervision and Programme Requirements.
In my mind, any such contracted PSA system in private hands would lead to high levels of media scrutiny, reputational damage and possible criminal investigation. Let's face it, we can't currently end 200 hours of UPW when only 130 had been completed. To claim the 200 hours would be fraud, so the future of contracts looks very troubled indeed if government and companies go down this route.
*************************
But if WY aren't completing Orders, shouldn't we know how much or how many are being completed? This would give a baseline of what existing staff can provide and give contractors an idea of how much performance they would need to add to meet their contracts? Am I missing something here? Sounds like an FOI request to me.
**********************
You need to read up on the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. In effect this signals the end of court imposed specified activities, giving all the discretion to the CRC provider to determine the programme of supervision.
A successful completion will be getting to the end of the order, not completing the actual number of days which are simply set as a maximum. This does not affect unpaid work or treatment requirements. This is supposed to free up the new providers to do what works for rehabilitation.
************************
The WY PSA model, was I think, an early attempt to shape CRC work. Community Orders for whatever period may have 15 activity days, 30, 50 or 60. Nothing in between. It is true that Supervision as a Requirement, is not actively sought in the majority of cases, generally reserved for Sexual Offenders and DV cases; who continue to get fairly long periods on a Community Order, coupled with interventions such as NSOG (60) or Building Better Relationships (50) both High Activity Requirements, or Safer Relationships (30).
The low/med risk cases complete their activity days, based on Post Sentence Assessment and may include; 8 x OB groupwork sessions (Action for Change) 2 x Victim Awareness Module, 6 x ETE sessions, 10 x sessions with a drug/alcohol support group/intervention, or Hate Crime Module, Drink Driving Group etc etc. I'm sure you get the idea. Once the sessions/activity days are complete you can terminate the case - it is done, as there is no supervision activity to continue for the full 12 months. SSSO, Curfews, AC's and UPW can stand alone.
There are however serious administration issues associated with the PSA which WY are trying to get sorted. The original idea was to reduce the number of 1-1 supervision orders, that is for sure. However, to monitor the system, you need to record, contacts etc under the right line in NDelius and this is easier said than done. You need a procedure, that everyone buys into and fully understands; and it assumes other partner organisations etc will give you information re: attendance etc.
A major problem of PSA, from my perspective is that there are not enough activities running in order to get clients through their court orders, quickly, whilst motivation remains high and if there is no supervision, you lose people. Long, very long waiting lists for Sex Offender Treatment, for instance means that more of what would be group work or interventions work, is having to be done by OM's and in my view being put onto 'pathways' to treatment, which are driven by numbers, as opposed to the appropriateness of the clients passage into treatment. For example, rather than do a core programme, OM's do the initial 4 sessions and the men, as they are men, are fast tracked into Better Lives, or Relapse Prevention, whatever you want to call it.
It is/was a brave attempt to focus attention, provide a wide variety of interventions and to retain the respect of the judiciary, but just because they have done away with National Standards in favour of professional judgement and desistence, the staff resources to run programmes, groups etc are just not there.
WYT are getting tough on staff, printing off charts to demonstrate failings in recording etc which may reflect badly on PSA, but in reality, the performance charts are artificial, as the monitoring system makes no allowances for things we cannot actually achieve, with the best will in the world and so all it does is demoralise staff.
Now if you fling all this into the mix of Crams to delius, new templates for everything, r-oasys, all of which are still throwing up all kinds of glitches, and TR on top....I am surprised WY staff have battled on, or maybe we are just ahead of the game, and things can hardly get any worse.
********************
You put in a lot of detail in there, and I kind of followed it (some of it), and thanks for trying to explain it. But doesn't all the evidence suggest that it is one to one work and relationships that makes the difference? Not groups, activities and blunt interventions? That is my experience and I think it's the message of desistance research. Sounds like you are trying to get square pegs in round holes...that surely is a very expensive route to failure. Maybe a Freedom of Information request might prove or disprove that?.
********************
Sounds reminiscent of a work fare type scenario whereby a schedule of tasks was presented to the claimant by the PbR agency to facilitate eligibility for benefits. The catch? It was never achievable. Not meeting the criteria led to sanction, whereas anyone claiming to have completed all the tasks was sanctioned (& in some cases referred for prosecution) for fraud. The financial benefit to the agency was its success in detecting fraudulent claims, a prized criteria worth more than being successful with the client.
The wiles of the cash hungry are beyond our wildest imaginations. And even holier-than-thou MPs like Blunkett take the shilling.
Maybe we pay a retainer to our most innovative clients in return for ideas as to how to maximise profit in the shark infested world of dodgy business?
**********************
I started the thread re WYPT and 'PSA'. I am guessing that anon at 20:57 is currently employed by the same Trust . .too much inside information to be an outsider. My aim was not to educate re 'Activity Requirements' . . you'll all get that soon enough! but more to highlight the extent to which senior management has colluded with MOJ in the whole process of TR.
Vast resources, both staff and finance, have been pumped into making sure PSA is up and running. Alongside this similar resources have been used to make a 'Mutual' bid for the CRC. 'PSA' had been in the planning for months before roll out and needed the authority from Judges in the WY area. Similarly specialist 'low risk' teams were created and PSO's were recruited on temporary contracts specifically to manage low risk service - users.
I sat in a briefing with Mark Siddall (ops director) as far back as Jan 2012 when he was actively promoting PSA / Activity Req's as the future . . .we would be experts in delivery....we should be careful as to whom we shared our knowledge . . .we would be needed to deliver the model to other areas . . .and yes . . .we would be able to sell our expertise.
I'm now getting to my point! How did he know all this so long ago? Given that this whole thing was his baby, recognition at Buck Palace etc; why, just when he could bathe in all its glory, does he decide to take early retirement? Why did Sue Hall accept a senior position with CRC only to pull out days later ?
Something doesn't add up. People know more than they are telling. Please will at least one CEO or the like, spill the beans. It will inevitably "come out in the wash" but timing could be crucial.
Just to finish . . .all this gratis TR preparation work in W. Yorks was done with the full knowledge of both NAPO and Unison. I was sat next to my Union rep in the very briefing I refer to above!
*************************
I read about WYPT with interest but can't help feeling you should be looking to Durham and Teesside Trust for the forerunner for the CRC model. All offenders complete the 10 session (but could take up to 16 with reviews) Citizenship Programme with the OM either PO or PSO grade dependent on ROH. They then pass onto a CSS officer (not Tier 4, MAPPA, CP or DV cases) who is a PSO grade and can hold 100 cases, there are examples of this. Supervision can then include using bulk reporting centres staffed by volunteers (yes truly).
I bet the MOJ have watched this model with interest. I hear practitioners were very concerned about the Citizenship Programme but it was imposed with a very tight fist by the exec team. No-one gets to know their offenders they are simply processed and then move on. When their Chief Exec also became Cumbria's Chief he tried to impose this model on them but as he was less influential there - not having appointed the exec team himself - it did not happen. This model has been running in Durham for three years so there is a lot of data on it available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)