An Inspector Calls 3

21 – SERVICE USER ENGAGEMENT 

Not all areas of supervision were equally concerning. We continued to find, for example, that many CRCs have invested significantly in engaging with service users across each stage of supervision – with a welcome commitment in some areas to using ex-service users as mentors and to run induction courses for people just starting probation. Service User councils have been funded in many areas to represent their views and feed in ideas for service improvement and routes into paid employment within the service have been created. And there has been a good focus by responsible officers in engaging individual service users in their assessment and sentence plans and the delivery of interventions, with up to 70% of the cases we inspected receiving positive marks for these aspects of supervision. 

Risk of harm 

22 - SHOWING AVERAGE ROSH SCORES YR 1 vs YR 2

By far the weakest area of performance in last year’s inspections however, was the quality of work to manage risk of harm – particularly amongst the type of cases managed by CRCs, where we rated over half the cases we looked at as unsatisfactory. Although, we’ve found that many CRC have invested significantly in retraining staff on the basics of risk management over the past year, it’s been disappointing to see that this hasn’t translated into better management of the cases we’ve inspected more recently. On every aspect of supervision in relation to risk of serious harm, apart from initial assessment, we continue to find that on average less than half the cases we assessed across the 9 re-inspected services were satisfactory in relation to planning, delivery or review of actions to reduce risk of harm. 

23 – CHANGES IN ROSH SCORES FOR EACH CRC – YEAR 1 VS YEAR 2

That’s not to say there hasn’t been some improvement in some services. Four of the eight CRC reports we’ve published so far on our second round of inspections show an improvement in the management of risk of harm – and this was a significant factor in their improved overall ratings . But less than half of the cases we inspected at the remainder were satisfactory on this crucial aspect of probation performance. 

24 - SHOWING % OF DOMESTIC ABUSE CHECKS 

Time and again we are finding that some of the fundamental tasks of effective risk management have been missed. Take the checks that every responsible officer is supposed to run with their local police domestic abuse team at the point of initial assessment. As you’ll see from this chart, our latest inspections continue to show a big variation in the proportion of cases where this is being done – with neither the NPS or the CRC doing these checks in over a third of cases and a couple of areas where less than 40% of cases getting the checks they should have done. 

25 - SHOWING % OF HOME VISITS 

Or take home visits – in pre-Covid times an essential part of proper risk assessment for many cases but something that our latest round of inspections is showing is happening in less than 40% of the cases where my inspectors think it should and in some areas in as few as a quarter of cases. 

26 – SFO REVIEWS 

Where the risk of harm isn’t properly managed then the consequences can potentially be disastrous – for the members of the victims involved and for the reputation of the probation service. Indeed, it’s sad but true, that the only time the public may get to hear about the probation service is when something goes wrong and a high profile Serious Further Offence results. Over the past 6 months we have been looking at these Serious Further Offences, or SFOs and the way that they are investigated, so see if this might be improved. 

There were about 500 reviews of SFOs undertaken by the probation service in 2018 – of which 124 were for cases where someone under probation supervision was charged with murder or manslaughter. Overall, 57% of the SFO offences involved someone under NPS supervision and 43% someone under CRC supervision. About half involved someone already identified as high risk of harm. 

27 – RISK LEVELS IN MURDER SFOs 

For homicide cases, we found that two thirds of cases involved someone who had previously been assessed as low or medium risk – suggesting a previous failure to identify the true underlying risk presented by that person. That decision on which risk level to assign at the point of initial assessment or review is a crucial one which can make a significant difference to the way someone is supervised. 

Someone classified as high risk rather than medium, is more likely to get access to an approved premises bed after release from prison; will be assigned an experienced and trained probation officer rather than a PSO; will be seen weekly by that officer and if identified as a MAPPA level 2 or 3 case will get multi-agency management – including by the police – as well as the probation service. And all of these things can make a real difference to the way that risks are mitigated, when so many other cases will be competing for an offender manager’s attention. Equally crucial, is the way things are managed when circumstances change. When someone under supervision moves in with a new partner, or starts to test positive for class A drug after a period of clean tests; or is arrested or spotted with old criminal associates. 

28 – COMMON WEAKNESSES IN RISK MANAGEMENT 

A failure to show the necessary professional curiosity about these things or trigger the appropriate action can prove literally fatal – as we found in our analysis of the case of Joseph McCann which was published today. This showed a catalogue of errors, from a downgrading of his MAPPA classification too soon after release from prison; to a lack of coordination of prison, police and probation intelligence; to the three different probation officers he had during the 3 months before his release from custody in February 2019. And most damningly of all eight missed opportunities to revoke his IPP licence between 2017 and 2019, which would have ensured he could not have been re-released from prison without a Parole Board hearing. 

All of these things – lack of professional curiosity; the wrong assessment of risk; poor information sharing with the prisons and police; over-optimistic assessments of progress and premature relaxation of controls – are things that we find again and again in the cases we look at in our local inspections. Which is why it’s so important to learn the lessons when things go wrong. 

29 – SFO THEMATIC SUMMARY 

SFO reviews are conducted by local probation services themselves and quality assured by a central HMPPS team. For a thematic inspection we published in May, we undertook a detailed inspection of almost 50 of these reviews. We also visited 8 probation areas – NPS and CRCs - to talk to probation officers and managers about what the process felt like to them. 

Overall, we found that about half the reviews we looked at required some improvement. There were long delays with the central quality assurance process and we felt opportunities were missed for learning lessons which could improve national practice or policy. 

The reports themselves were often very long and dense and focused more on what happened rather than why. And although it was good to see that victims can now access the full reports, they weren’t drafted in a way which made them easy to understand and we were surprised that so few victims or their families asked to see them. 

Some of the probation officers involved in the process told us they found it a “horrible” or “shameful” experience and felt it was more about assigning blame than learning lessons. 

We’ve made a number of recommendations to improve the learning from these reviews – including, in particular, that other agencies like the police or social services should be involved when they have also had contact with an offender. Of the 46 reviews we looked at only 3 had involved this sort of multi-agency element. 

And to bring greater transparency to the process, we recommended that an outside body like HMIP should independently quality assure a sample of SFO reviews on a regular basis and publish an annual summary of its findings. A recommendation I’m pleased to say that the Lord Chancellor has accepted and which we will start to do from April of next year. 

30 - IN CONCLUSION  

So, in conclusion, and to return to my original question. Whilst I don’t believe the probation service as a whole is, or was, in ‘crisis’ – it was undoubtedly severely tested by the transforming rehabilitation reforms and some CRC services remain of significant concern. 

Of the nine CRCs we have reinspected since last September, it has been encouraging to see that almost half have responded to our previous recommendations and shown signs of improvement – with three now rated ‘good’. It’s also been good to see the very real progress that’s been made with through the gate services – with 6 services now rated outstanding on this standard – even where day to day offender management may still be inadequate. This shows the impact that significant new resources can make on quality and the importance of properly resourcing the next stage of probation reform. 

For the other half of the services we’ve re-inspected however, things don’t look so encouraging. Reducing budgets have led to a significant loss of trained probation officers and the skills and experience that went with them – with caseloads for those that remain and the PSOs who have often replaced them continuing to be unacceptable and unmanageable as far as these staff are concerned. 

Good, committed leaders in these services are doing their best to engage staff and improve services, but they are often fighting a losing battle as resources diminish and there is a real risk to delivery over the next year as increasing numbers of CRC leaders are recruited by the National Probation Service to the new regional divisions that go live from this Autumn. 

The new, unified national offender management model is the right way to go from next year, but it won’t be a magic bullet by itself. Adequate resourcing will be crucial. 

But it’s also important that we don’t lose the innovation that transforming rehabilitation did unleash in some areas. Not all the CRC staff I speak to relish moving into the NPS. They’ve enjoyed the freedoms they’ve had to try new things; to move into decent office accommodation for the first time or to work out of community hubs; to develop much easier to use offender management software. And service users as well have benefitted from the real commitment shown by many CRCs to listen to their views and give them a role in their services as mentors and ultimately as paid staff. 

So, a service that is on the road to recovery, but still a long and winding one to traverse and huge challenges ahead as they deal with a new crisis that none of us had expected 5 or 6 months ago. It’s going to be an extremely interesting and challenging year ahead for all of them.

NPS and Bureaucracy

Whilst we await to hear from Ian Lawrence following his re-election as Napo General Secretary, some recent exchanges on Facebook give further insight into how NPS under Civil Service control continues to drown in new acronyms and bureaucratisation:-

I have heard this from my work mate who has spoken with designer of new tool. Good news: PIT tool is going; bad news QA tool is coming and it’s even more time consuming. We need to speak to our union reps about this. We have high caseloads - plus have extra admin data stuff to do / NSIs, tracking spreadsheets. Now this!! 

It doesn't matter what quality tool is used. If you have an excessive workload then demand management protocols need to be put in place which is all about reducing tasks. There can be no justification for expecting staff to achieve unrealistic objectives when there are excessive workloads. In an ideal world we all want to produce quality work but we are far from an ideal world. Anyone with specific concerns should contact their union rep for advice especially if workload demands are impacting on their health and wellbeing.

Rosh pit has gone. It was decommissioned back in May. There are guidance notes for staff. Only oasys assessors have to fill in the QA tool.

We still have to use guidance notes tho and that’s what is taking time plus the roll backs from SPOs.

The QA tools are frustrating. Not followed one yet ....those ‘probation staff’ who are part of designing and devising them would benefit in reflecting on their own previous practice and whether it would have met the QA guidelines! More work, no decent pay rise! Staff are imploding because of stress. Shocking!

I would say that the new QA is quite a change in what they want to see in a good assessment. I've completed one with my manager & would definitely say it's worth every OM having a look at it to see just how easy it is to get a needs more work or worse. Lots of focus on SU input and specific SP objectives which is good but not sure how realistic it is to expect the level of detail and repetition expected in every case. Managers have regularly said to me that 'good enough is good enough' when I've complained about workload, which is all well & good until what is considered 'good' keeps getting more and more detailed...

Maybe the actual tool such as OASys needs amending instead of coming up with various guides to tell us where to put information which has not been requested through the OASys guidance and that’s before the repetition, oh the repetition.....

That's what I said in our training the other day. The new tool doesn't lend itself to the actual eoasys sections. We have been told not to use help button in eoasys as goes against the QA tool! Eg. If you have someone with loads of court breaches and indicate breach of trust in rosh screening, the assessor will mark it as a negative and it pulls the scoring down. It costs too much money to change eoasys.

Why would they mark it negative, that doesn’t make sense.

Because if the reason for ticking yes to the breach of trust question isn't related to SOC, terrorism or whatever else was in the audit, think 5 areas, but not court orders or escape prison, it should be ticked no. Therefore if ticked yes and it's just a breach of order, the audit tool indicates to give a negative mark. Our assessor though has said she uses her discretion on that particular question but other assessors might not.

Is it bad that I hadn’t even heard of PIT until a few weeks ago? 

I’ve avoided using it lol.

I'm not sure I even know what it is...

More and more time spent at the computer. Less and less time working with people. And sometimes feels like I am just describing my job role in oasys now. Sad.

I’ve had enough.

I heard CRC are moving away from oasys and are trialling their new system Omnia in Thames Valley. Oasys needs a massive overhaul.

Pick of the Week 14

A bit late, but a roundup from before I went offline on holiday:-

UPW is an utter joke in London. It was privatised with the assistance of London Probation Trust and at first staff were told all would be well as Serco wanted it to be a success and would update UPW. What followed should have been a warning to us all. Serco devastated the entire operation with wave after wave of redundancies. Beneficiaries (charity shops, churches, charities etc) who had long supported UPW in London decided they could not deal with the cold ruthless corporate morons they were now faced with and pulled the plug. 

Serco got rid of workshops reducing the capacity for those who could not work outside or in charity shops to perform meaningful work. UPW became a skeleton service run by corporate yes people loathed by the staff. They got rid of vans so many offenders wasted time wandering from project to project. Above all there were hours being recorded that had never been worked. The entire system was a sham conning Sentencers and the public. 

When it came back to the CRC, staff were relieved but not a lot changed other than getting new uniforms with the MTCnovo logo. Projects are still oversubscribed and it is actually quite hard to get breached. There are reports of offenders doing very little at all throughout simply by turning up to oversubscribed projects and spending half the time travelling to another one after get time credited for turning up. There has been an increase in assaults on staff. However MTCnovo is keeping a tight lid on things as UPW earns them money.

*****
I am London PO and after Serco took over the UPW but before the split I stopped proposing UPW in my PSRs (we were working "end to end"). I would find reasons not to proposes UPW because I began to find it really difficult to persuade the service users to comply after the type of work offered became meaningless. One service user complained that he was made to move a big pile of earth with a spade from one end of a small park to another, no wheelbarrow and no explanation as to why. He said it was lucky there was not a man with a short fuse there that day deciding to take the spade to the supervisor's forehead. 

It is a shame we cannot persuade our report writing NPS colleagues to desist from proposing unpaid work. But since they don't have to supervise anyone on it, they forget or become increasingly unaware what a nonsense it is. I sincerely wish I knew a few magistrates I could make aware. Surely something would eventually find its way into their association and on into the media. Didn't the magistrates help to see off those court fees?

*****
NPS are required : No they are directed, by the sentencer, to look at punitive sanctions such as EMS curfew, UPW and exclusion requirements. They have to say if the offender is suitable or not. They cannot say they would not recommend such a sentence as an UPW requirement as the removal of a pile of earth from point A to point B isn't explained to said shoveller as to its end purpose and all without the aid and use of a wheel barrow and therefore a wholly inappropriate disposal. 

I am afraid that a lot of the lay magistrates/DJs, even worse: Crown Court judges, would not only rebuke said author but out of sheer devilment would sanction an UPW requirement immediately, and then demand a review report to ensure that it was enforced. Sorry, but report authors do not have such sway on the judiciary!! Ask any case manager in this great land of ours where UPW has been added by the sentencer, despite the fact that the report author did not recommend such a requirement...... Pejorative I know (sorry), but you get my point....

*****
I don't propose it when I've asked, for instance, BBR as I think that's what's required. Sometimes they go with it, other times they may add UPW. How punitive it's all got. When I started a 2:2 order was about as onerous as you could have.

*****
I think there is a similar problem arising in the NPS in my shire county. So many sex offenders are sentenced to COs on the basis that they will be 'treated' in the community and short custody doesn't allow for it, but in my area SO programmes are being withdrawn or men are getting on to groups half way through their Orders. So their treatment might be not at all, or two years or more after their offence, when their motivation has usually gone. The NPS must surely do what they have told the Courts they will do with sex offenders. But we seem to have lost sight of our responsibility for administering justice as required by the Courts.

*****
The new tiering exercise seems to me to be designed to enable more cases to be managed by cheaper staff. I have no particular issue with PSO's managing medium RoSH IPP's and Lifers. Like sex offenders, there has been far too much smoke and mirrors about these people over the years. RoSH is dynamic and as we all know, offending rates amongst lifers are stubbornly low, to coin a phrase. 

My issue is the formulaic means by which the new tiers have been defined. As a comment above says, people need to be assessed on their individual needs and circumstances. We all know that the most effective practice comes from addressing diversity. Don't we? An illustration of the current lack of joined up thinking in NPS is the E3 proposed end state for staff numbers. It fails entirely to take into account the OMU in custody review that says that prison OMU'S need to be staffed exclusively by PO's starting in the Spring of next year. That means PSO's currently in prisons, as well as a significant proportion of those in AP's, will be coming into the community and PO's will be going to jail. 

In addition, all custody cases will be managed by an OM in prison until six months prior to release. A review of my caseload indicates that the PSO managed tiers plus the custody managed cases mean that I have three left. Two of them are in hospital on Section 47/49 and the other is UAL in India and never likely to return. Oh well, better get my prison suit dry cleaned then.

*****
Rehabilitation Practitioners are on the way. The clue is in the title, they'll fit in anywhere, NPS, CRCs, or even helping out in under staffed prisons. Apprenticeship time served, cheaper to employ, and ratified by the Institute of Probation, the centre of excellence.
Probation services are being phased out, and will be replaced by rehabilitation services.

*****
"The role we will submit will be named Rehabilitation Practitioner - and incorporates the PSO role." More evidence that the PI is part of the problem rather than part of the solution!!

*****
"Rehabilitation practitioner" is a meaningless title. I suspect that, if we did a Family Fortunes style 'our survey said' quiz, the large majority of the population would think it was something to do with physiotherapy or sports massage. Moving away from the word "probation" - which is at least understood in the wider population, even if we complain about our media invisibility - is just foolish. Clearly the PI is desperate for the cash that PACT and St Giles Trust may be able to trickle in their direction.

*****
I'm more worried about the Apprenticeship part of the job title - cos it's all in the choice of terminology. Apprentices have less legal (employment) rights than is enshrined in other employment contacts, including being exempted from the minimum wage. Considering the starting wage for a PSO is more than the minimum, I would be interested to know how much these apprentices are to be paid. Basic apprenticeship wages normally work out at about £2.50 an hour.

*****
Rehabilitation Practitioner is an ambiguous title designed to supply a work force to CRCs on a wage that CRCs are willing to pay, ie national living wage. But don't be fooled. Rehabilitation Practitioner is not just ambiguous, it's all encompassing. Where would such a job description place you? Working with the police? Mental health services? HTC? Or walking the beat to fill in for community support officers? It's a very broad spectrum that can be filled with such a general job title.

*****
Staff used to join probation as a PSO and look forward to training as a probation officer and getting a uni degree in the process. Now they're being offered a bloody apprenticeship to be less than a PSO and probably paid at the minimum wage. Maybe okay for school-leavers but not for the majority. Can this so-called Probation Institute hurry up and rename itself as the Rehabilitation Institute so then it can stop pretending to represent probation practitioners!!

*****
This is the PI showing its business interests and more evidence it has no interest in probation.

1. The MoJ have been trying to align us with the police for the past few year. Being aligned with the police in any way is something I'm wholeheartedly against as our ethos and work is completely different.

2. The PQF had a pathway for students of police studies. I believe the reason was financial related on the part of university and training providers and the police service spreading its wings into 'offender management'.

How to Magic Work Away

Seen on Facebook:-

I've just come back from leave; what do NPS staff think of this new tiering?

You'll need to check it's right - I've found mistakes in mine. Not sure it's an improvement.

Yes I have too. Also doesn't suit PPO cases

And lifers or IPPs in the community come out low enough to be supervised by PSOs!

It's crazy. One of my PPOs who is medium ROSH comes out Lower than a PPO who is low ROSH cos of his high OGRSs score.

What is it? We are in the process of moving into a coloured system x

Not sure if you're in work but all our cases have been tiered in Delius automatically for the NPS system. Think we're just to ignore it and await the move from Delius ...

They've got rid of the tiering 1-4 and replaced it with a new system.

Yes we've just got rid of the 1-4 system.

It's far more complicated in my view

No doubt it's designed to make the work easier...............

We are CRC and were discussing it at work today. Can't say I fully understand it (or need to!) but if they are now saying certain tiers should be PSO managed, surely the fact that all OMU PSO's were automatically placed into CRC should now be questioned?

We have PSOs in NPS

PSO's that came over during TR or recruited since? I'm pretty sure in our area all PSO's (unless Court Officers) were put to CRC on the basis they wouldn't be allowed to manage NPS cases? I'm sure there was no sift for PSO's in Northants? (Looking for someone else in my area to correct me??)

Yes they came over in TR. now they are doing most of court work. In Devon & Cornwall we never had PSOs in court.

Either way I hope the union picks up on this. Sounds like NPS will need to recruit PSO's now, after originally having no apparent need for them.

We said today that Xxxx, Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx should transfer back to us. It's a ridiculous situation x

No chance - I'll have no bloody colleagues left!!

Surely if the case is suitable to be managed by a PSO in NPS - it should be managed by the CRC!!!

It's Mappa level 1s. Medium ROSH .. Etc

Regardless - how can a new recruit to NPS be better able to manage any level of risk - than a CRC colleague probably with years of service and experience - it baffles me. I am programmes in CRC working with mainly NPS participants.

I know ... It's crazy

This highlights just how we have been divided by the changes. Its simpler than that.... all cases should be managed by one organisation ....NPS.

I agree - but that's not going to happen any time soon - so rather than build up the NPS and take on new staff on rubbish terms and conditions (compared to those already serving) let's ensure that we protect the jobs and the skills and professional judgment in CRC staff (recently ex NPS) - which are used to support and rehabilitate our participants - until such a time (hopefully) we are again all one service.

Basically the morons realised there was no recruitment/career progression for NPS without PSOs in the mix, also greatly underestimated the number of MAPPA level ones, despite being warned.

The assessment is wrong - Mappa 1 should be CRC - I have some amazing colleagues both posted and PSO with years of experience working with these cases.

I'm with Xxxx on this, nothing "should" be CRC or NPS, we should be one public organisation, I refuse to use the language of division.

I 100% agree with you - but you might want to all come and work with us.

"Us"? I don't believe there is a them and us.

Your absolutely right  I just get so angry with this whole mess.

Yep - another night spitting dust and ruminating rather than beauty sleep lol.

Me too.

Don't you just love these things. I am still in favour of qualitative assessments. People are individuals.

We assumed our workload on WMT would suddenly plummet with the new tiering but it hasn't. Early indications are that not that many cases are suitable for PSOs either so the staffing figures they came up with in the summer that said the North East were over on POs and way under on PSOs seems dodgy to say the least. People need to check that cases have been tiered correctly and discuss with managers if not. For PSOs to take the C1 and some C2 cases they have to have "evidenced competencies" which is going to involve months of training and observations potentially, so not even a quick fix. Chaos as usual.

Isn't it just.

Currently in CRC so haven't seen this but I decided just could not work for NPS - not only because of the rubbish terms and conditions but the total general chaos being managed by a load of still wonderfully dedicated staff - so I applaud you all but with 5 years to go before retirement - wanted an easier life.

After all my consideration last year I too decided to stay CRC for the same reasons. I'm taking maternity leave in November then will see what it all looks like once I'm back.

Going to Hell in a Handcart

With the 'marketisation' of probation, everything's now about the money and here we have another step towards eroding the PSR, but "HMCTS and Magistrates welcome the direction of travel" apparently. Would that be going to hell in a handcart I wonder?  

Strategy for the production of Pre-Sentence Reports across NPS London

The revised Probation Instruction ‘Determining Reports for Court’ supports the national move towards producing a greater number of Pre-Sentence Reports as ‘Short Format Reports’. This is due to be published Autumn 2015, NPS London is working towards this model of practice. The direction of travel was previously set by PI 05/2011 and the new PI builds on practice that is already underway.

The PI will change the language of Pre-Sentence Reports introducing the use of Short Format Reports (SFRs) to enable the NPS to increase the efficiency with which reports are provided to Court and to allow the flexibility to use staff resources to meet the demands from Court under the Transforming Summary Justice (TSJ) agenda. SFRs replace both fast delivery reports (FDRs) and oral reports. The expectation is that the report will be delivered in the most effective manner to support safe sentencing. The current FDR and oral Report templates should continue to be used in the interim.

HMCTS and Magistrates welcome the direction of travel of the PI. The demands on Courts are increasing and they want to receive succinct reports delivered orally on the day where possible. Only where the Court requires a dangerousness assessment or in cases of very high risk should a standard delivery report be provided and a full OASys assessment. Prompt sentencing is also in many cases better for victims as it facilitates a speedy resolution to what can be protracted proceedings.

These developments take into account the following interdependencies:

• changes in Court practices
• demands of TSJ and better case management at Crown Courts; the changes in the nature of the NPS workload
• increasing demands on field PO’s in terms of caseload, parole reports, oral hearings and additional tasks
• use of standard delivery reports and their place within the contractual arrangements between NPS and CRC;
• the purpose of sentencing as set out in the new Probation Instruction 
• the balance of the work between pre and post sentence elements of an offender journey.

Nationally, London remains the most expensive among NPS Divisions in the production of reports for Court. Part of the rationale for this work is to reduce the cost of producing pre-sentence reports at Court. While this cannot be achieved overnight, this is an objective we are working towards over the next 3 months.

The following set of principles are to be applied across London Courts:

1. Courts to make every effort to complete reports on the day as an oral report.

2. Where the report can only be delivered in writing, because additional third party information is required or as a result of sensitivity around the case, this should be undertaken as a short format report in 0 – 5 working days.

3.This approach applies to both Magistrates and Crown Courts. All Courts are required to complete as much work as possible as ‘on the day’ reports. Additionally Courts are required to work as a national organisation and all work should be prioritised, regardless of the address of the offender.

4. Only those offences which require a dangerousness assessment or are high risk of harm, are done with a full Layer 3 OASys and in SDR format. All other adjourned reports are completed as short format reports with a Layer 1 OASys and an RSR/CAS, including a full ROSH analysis where one is triggered.

5. If a Layer 3 OASys assessment already exists, a Layer 3 assessment should be pulled through selecting "PSR other offences committed" as the purpose; updating Section 1 (Offending Information/OGRS), Section 2 (Offence Analysis), RoSH screening and the RoSH full analysis (if required).

6. Where the enablers for a report on the day are not present (i.e. DV call out information), and a report needs to be adjourned, where appropriate the report will be written as a short format report for workload management purposes, with additional time allocated if needed.

7. NPS Court staff must initiate safeguarding checks regarding children and adults where appropriate. It may not be required to adjourn sentence until the outcome of the checks is known as safeguarding work continues ihto the supervision of the order, the determining factor will be the offence type and if the outcome could significantly alter the sentence. The Court should be made aware if information is not yet received and a record made in CAS.

8. If an officer considers that a report merits a full SDR with associated OASys, they should consult their SPO. These should be reserved for high-risk cases.

9. Reports continue to be completed by the appropriate grade of staff (i.e. PO’s for HIGH risk cases, Sex Offences, Serious Violence – the guidelines for this do not change from those currently in place).

10. For this approach to be effective and for providers to receive the necessary information they need to manage their cases we MUST ensure that where triggered in the CAS or where the offender is deemed MEDIUM risk of harm a FULL RISK OF SERIOUS HARM (Risk Sections R1 to R10 in OASys) is completed. Check the OASys override (in the screening) – i.e. the bit that makes defensible decision not to complete full analysis.

The allocation of Reports to Sessional report authors should follow the same principles as outlined in this document and attract the appropriate remuneration.

Longer term position:

➢ The PI for Report Determination is due out later this year and will reinforce this position.
➢ There will be a standard nDelius report template for use in all Courts nationally. This will be one template which can be adapted for use as an oral, short format. The current template in nDelius is sufficient at present for use across NPS London. Standard delivery reports will continue to be completed in OASys.
➢ Community cases allocated to the NPS continue to require an OASys Initial Sentence Plan within 10 days of attendance at an initial appointment.
➢ Resourcing of Courts remains a key priority within NPS London and across the NPS.

OASys Special

Purple Futures have issued new guidance for OASys:

1) All standalone UPW to have basic layer within 10 days.

2) All ISPs to be completed within 10 days on the info to hand.

3) When ROSH & RoR are both low then no need to fill in text boxes - just score sections 3-13.

4) If criminogenic ROSH fill in appropriate text box.

5) If after 10 days info from FCIU etc still missing the ISP must be locked and a review must be done within 8 weeks.

6) OMs to make assessments concise, no need to write numerous paragraphs.

7) Section 2 needs completing fully.

8) A risk of harm screening is to be done in all cases.

9) All ISPs must demonstrate client involvement ie include ENAM/SAQ items in the sentence plan.

10) All sentence requirements to be included in the plan.

11) Always put delius entry that OASsys has been completed - this can be done prior to OASys countersignature as we are being marked on timeliness and not quality!!

Definition of ROSH: many offences of assault where an injury's been caused which isn't life threatening or traumatic and where recovery will not be difficult or impossible are not viewed as 'serious' therefore no ROSH needs completing because although the offender poses a risk it is not a serious risk. We're to avoid using 'risk of harm' and focus upon risk of SERIOUS harm.

Despite the rights and wrongs of the above it is going to save me some serious time.

*****
Yes until your interviewed for an SFO and you will be asked "serious" questions about your assessment and your ability to risk assess.

*****
I don't think so as the assessment is based on the information to hand ie even if it's an assault, so long as no harm done then we're clear. We are no longer expected to have crystal balls and that will always be my defence. Very interesting the timeliness is prioritised over quality. Oh my word!

*****
SFO's will not be about crystal balls. It will be about information that is already available but the worker 'failed in their duty to investigate further'.

*****
But we're being encouraged not to enter text in boxes and only to score. Therefore keep Delius brief and they will have to prove we were aware of information and didn't investigate. Don't forget if it's not written down it didn't happen.

*****
I agree with your comments, although I would have to question what kind of culture are we being made to develop and what is our responsibility in that? Yes you have to look after yourself, but we also have a responsibility to challenge the oppressive nature of our working environment in which we are required to practice. We can't let our professional integrity become undermined.

Important to raise the issues of good and safe practice at every team meeting and at every supervision meeting. Self refer to occupational health and leave a paper trail of evidence of concerns. Have it recorded and have it documented, so when something does happen you can say..."see, I told you so, but I was ignored in favour of profits for shareholders".

*****
Sounds dreadful. How can they demand that?! They don't know anything about OASys and ROSH.

*****
Thank goodness, some sense at last. Hopefully this will provoke a long overdue review of exactly what is risk of serious harm, and what is meant by high, medium and low is actually meant to be about.

It wouldn't hurt to get people to actually read OASys before filling it in either, ie; it says insert language if other than English and what is consistently in the box? Provide the exact detail of the offence it says and what is in the box?, not the exact detail, the why and how.

Risk of Serious Harm, insert detail of the most recent offence/behaviour that raises the risk of serious harm and what is in the box? The current offence is not indicative of serious harm or the pulled through detail of the current shop theft. Over the page in previous behaviour is the sentence along the lines of convicted of, lets say, Indecent Assault, no detail available.(detail there in full in the assessments completed when that was current), but hey who has time/cares enough or even thinks of reading the previous sentences assessments?

Oh and score the sections according to the analysis in the guidance, rather than 0-2 as least to worst. (It's guaranteed that there is at least one person happily completing assessments, hitting the targets, doing it without even speaking to the person concerned, oblivious to the impact of what they write on the person concerned,(bet they would love to be told in supervision that they have a number of 'deficits') and is totally oblivious to the existence of help and scoring guidance. Oh and don't forget that if it's written down it certainly doesn't mean it DID happen.

*****
OASys at birth was a somewhat agricultural tool which was originally a useful concept, i.e. Bring all assessments together in one place. OASys now? Try to imagine a transatlantic aircraft intended to carry 500 passengers with all modern luxuries, but built upon the original Wright Brothers' flying machine. It's utter bollox, well intentioned but nevertheless bollox. And worse still, NOMS got their grubby mitts on it & decided to build in a spy network. Result - uberbollox.

Good points raised above, but it's difficult to make those points because of the complexity of the bolloxing stoopid tool and the lack of clarity of definitions. How many different systems now refer to "risk" as high, medium or low? How many different forms of "risk" are there - serious harm? Serious sexual harm? Serious psychological harm? Red, amber or green? Reoffending - same type of offence? Any offence?

For me, the tool should be an ever-expanding chronologically aligned single record. No locking off, guillotines or multifarious versions where data is abandoned or deleted - simply one continuous rolling assessment with key milestones/markers, e.g. new offence, start of order, new offence, hospital admission, transfer to prison, release, etc. Then, at any point, assessors can review without having to close & open multiple documents hoping to find if/where/when certain data was entered/deleted.

Recent example - new case, name was familiar, looked at last OASys, nothing to link with what seemed familiar. Out of curiosity I looked back at random assessments as far as records went and found one with mental health report attached. All reference to that had been deleted on the subsequent OASsys and thus any "pull thru" after that contained none of that vital information. I have now resurrected that historical information because it informs the why & how of risk to female staff. Last known officer told me "it all makes sense now. We couldn't work out why he kept on about being a risk to women when his offences were shoptheft."

Bleak Futures Week 12

On the one hand it's great having a day off, but all it means is catch-up in the days after - a day less to get reports and prison visits done before the next court date. It's false economy.

*****
Just what I was thinking. We have a Good Friday and Bank Holiday and in my mind all it means is that I have 8 days to do 10 days work in. What has it come to when a long weekend off, when I can spend time with my kids, becomes a burden? My workload is increasing daily and whilst many of the under 12 months will go to the CRC, I'm not sure we have the capacity in the NPS to take more. I have a feeling that the RSR score will be increased this year to take the pressure off the NPS. I'm not gloating or anything and my colleagues in the CRC are likely equally overworked, but NOMS and the MoJ have it in their ability to arbitrarily change the rules to ones which better suit them.

*****
Really peed off to get a TTG - the original offences were from January but the Bail Act matters were post 1st Feb - the offender was not impressed either.

*****
One of my more 'challenging' clients coming to the end of a two year Licence - just got 8 weeks for TWOC. We now have the pleasure of each others company for a further twelve months.

*****
2 years of support and he continues to re-offend? You don't have to be Poirot to see that he is not suitable for Probation intervention. Not your fault I hasten to add but just shows this new TTG is a load of bollocks and is a one size does not fit all policy.

*****
TTG...I hear NPS are going to buy services for their offenders from TTG but wait...how can they buy a service that does not exist? Oh, I hear you reply. Well it isn't 01 May yet so there's still time...yup 6/7 weeks to set up a service and the staff haven't been recruited yet...TRansforming rehabilitation NOT.

*****
Takes 8 weeks at least for security clearance. It would be somewhat ironic if the one thing that Grayling broke the service up for was the one thing that did not occur. IMHO I cannot see it taking off in the meaningful form that Grayling envisioned. Anybody on here 'volunteered' for TTG and heard anything back yet?

*****
I'm from Merseyside and none of us have been asked to volunteer so not sure who's gonna be doing the TTG side of things in custodial establishments.

*****
About 2 weeks ago there was Expression of Interest in DTV CRC, of which TTG was one option. Unfortunately there was little information which may have led to making a more a informed choice. Not sure how many applied for TTG but as far as I know, no one in my office and CRC applied. I have a feeling that people will start being directed there in a week or so.

*****
Since reading this blog (including the comments) I keep hearing people's dissatisfaction with unsupportive and ass licking (excuse my french) managers. As a PQF trainee it is even worse. We are seen as a burden and with no support or direction are told to get on with it. Sadly these ass licking managers themselves went through the TPO route and have no clue how shit the PQF is. I hope to see on this blog a post dedicated to peoples experience on the PQF and post on lack of support from management.
Pissed off Anon

*****
I see OASys on IPPs and "Lifers" that are full of mistakes and it takes an age for the person involved to get redress. The main cause of this is too few staff - workloads are too high. Probation like most state jobs is a bureaucratic nightmare and now with the profit motive driving the show, it is becoming a bureaucratic hell and nothing will change until you decide to fight for it.

*****
A rumour is doing the rounds at the moment that the interface issue with CRCs and nDelius will take 18 months to fix and cost around £20 million. How true this is anyone's guess.

*****
I notice the MoJ Head of IT has jumped ship. That might mean something!

*****
I'm in an ICT workstream and it would appear that this is correct. It was put in layman terms so even an old bugger like me could understand 'Delius has a round hole but we have a square peg, we do not have the means to reshape either without using significant resources' which I took to mean money and time. Lets face it though, we've already got Oasys and Delius.....do we really want another computer system?

*****
If bids were based on an interface to allow CRCs to use own IT systems, and MOJ are not able to deliver this expectation, rather than CRCs handing back contracts, I would argue it's grounds for significant compensation to ensure they are not financially penalised for MOJ incompetence.

*****
Oh God, have just read this blog and my brain hurts.......Under 12 months custody and High ROSH = 4 weeks to do full OASys and ISP? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha tee hee

*****
As an outsider isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Surely a full OASys assessment (the governments fantastic risk assessment tool) should be done 'before' the level of ROSH can be determined? And indeed before the allocation to CRC or NPS can be decided upon? Am I reading today's post correctly? It appears to me that allocation of service, and ROSH is to be determined prior to OASys assessment?

*****
Is it Monday? Must be right then. But don't worry, there'll be another revision out tomorrow where ROSH is determined before the offence has been committed. A new kind of bespoke criminal justice system to suit the needs of CRC profiteers.

*****
I've heard that ROSH will now be determined pre birth and Steria are developing ultrasound technology as we speak....

*****
I'm in the CRC so how come OASys all have to be done within 10 days for low/med but if you are RoSH you get 4 weeks? - it doesn't make sense you would think it would be the other way around. Also don't forget we only have to see people once per fortnight for the first eight weeks and then once every 2 months. Why then the rush for the ISP?

*****
If the EVR end date is 31/3/15, and if the new 'owners' haven't completed "due diligence" to ascertain resources before that date, does the EVR end-date extend? No one in local Napo or our CRC seems able or wiling to answer.

*****
EVR carries on throughout the TR contract and doesn't end on 31/3. The issue will be application not definition.

*****
Interesting... Not the view our CRC masters have.

*****
We were informed immediately after share sale that there was not sufficient money left for any EVR for CRC staff - all went on corporate staff - mainly high end highly paid exec staff. Total disgrace - I know many practitioners would have opted to walk if they could have got the EVR package.

*****
On the increasing prison suicide rates, the Justice Select Committee said, “We considered it improbable that there is no link between estate reconfiguration, benchmarking and changes in operational policy, including the incentives and earned privileges scheme, and the shift in safety across the prison estate.”

But the ministry of justice (quote below) says there is no evidential link, but reducing suicides is a top priority. If it's a top priority to reduce suicides, then you presumably have some idea of what factors need addressing in order to bring about a reduction. As the MoJ dismisses the 'probable' factors identified by the JSC, then they should be identifying the factors which they believe may be causative. What they are doing is denying the obvious evidence and showing a callous disregard for human life. The MoJ is reaching new moral lows.

“The ministry of justice said that reducing prison suicides was top priority but insisted there was no evidence to link staffing levels, type of prison or crowding levels to the number of self-inflicted deaths across the estate.”

*****
HMIP is looking for short term secondments.....2 young offender inspections and one (to be confirmed on foreign nationals).....seems to me they are going to avoid the elephant in the room with its massive TRunk....

*****
Has anyone else heard that Oxfordshire custody cases are being managed by Cornwall up until point of release?

*****
Not just Cornwall but the rest of NPS South West South Central.

*****
Yes Plymouth have some.

*****
Clearly the MoJ and Grayling KNOW it's a mess, they KNOW they are worthy of censure and criticism and they KNOW that the Howard League have the credibility to bring their folly into view. They are frightened because they KNOW they have screwed it up.

*****
G4S is a private company even though they have public sector contracts so are therefore able to invite whoever they want to visit their facilities without NOMS permission. Or did we become some sort of KGB monitored secretly controlled state and I just missed the announcement?

*****
They might have Government contracts, but they are not G4S facilities - they are Government facilities run by G4S. That is why it is Her Majesty's Prison Oakwood.

*****
I think I'll write to Mr Blakeman, to ask why G4S are not permitted to proudly invite Frances Cook to see their achievement! Better do it before 31/3/2015, after which I am not allowed to exercise my freedom of speech, cos I'm a civil servant!

*****
Such a decision is clearly above Blakemans pay grade even though he is director, and I think considerable fall out may occur over this decision. He will I think find himself holding the sticky end of the stick on this one!

*****
Absolutely, this has the whiff of Grayling all over it.

*****
I think Frances should attend the prison visit as planned - with a film crew.

*****
This decision is a gift for both Frances Crook and G4S. G4S can say despite all of the adverse publicity and reputational damage it's incurred, it's still prepared to allow agencies that may be critical of its operational models to view and comment freely on its practices-nothing to hide here Sir!

Frances is in a position to claim "public censorship" of the real chaos in our prison system by denying her access, getting rid of Nick Hardwick because he tells the truth, and Graylings failed attempts to manipulate his replacement. On the other hand, NOMs (Grayling really), has opened up a can of worms for itself, and I think personally, legitimised all the criticisms from the Howard League for the past two years. There can be no other conclusion drawn, things are so dire through out the prison estate that no one but those who will lie about what they see will be allowed access. This is another ill thought out idea from the MoJ, and IMHO seriously stupid!

*****
And the next time G4S have problems and the government are pointing their finger at their failings, the line surely has to be, "We would like to engage more with external agencies that have a long term understanding of the operational needs for safe and productive prison practices. Unfortunately, the government will not allow us to do so". Well done NOMs!

ORA Special

The Offender Rehabilitation Act comes into force tomorrow and the predominantly clueless 'caterers and cleaners' officially take over the running of most of the former world class Probation Service. 

Disgracefully, it would seem 'probation' as a household name is already being 'airbrushed' out of existence. Within the Act and guidance notes, the term is being studiously avoided with talk instead of 'responsible officer' and the like. Perhaps even more significantly there was absolutely no mention of probation in yesterday's Guardian article by Zoe Williams on the excellent work being undertaken at HMP New Hall. It's not as if she doesn't know her stuff either, seeing as she's a trustee of the Butler Trust:-

"Everybody knows that prisons are not as simple as sending people away and having them slip back seamlessly into society afterwards as if nothing has happened. Women’s prisons are particularly complicated, and this week the justice minister, Simon Hughes, acknowledged the problem when he announced the rollout of a scheme to keep women from ending up behind bars. The female prison population has shot up since 1995, more than doubling by 2010; there are now around 3,800 women inmates. Yet, in that group, Hughes said, “There are so many women who ought not to be in prison. About half ought not to be there at all.”

But they are, and many who serve one sentence will go on to serve another. As everyone agrees, the prevention of reoffending is the key aim of the penal system. From that starting point, everything else will flow: all successful rehabilitation, all prevention of crime and all avoidance of creating more victims will come from the prison estate dealing imaginatively with what happens after inmates are discharged. The big untold story in all of this is how much is down to individuals: prison officers, psychologists and people from the third sector working inside and outside the prison walls. These people are often working way beyond their job descriptions, not to targets or directives, not to improve a measured outcome, but because that’s how they are."

It's widely accepted that there's been hardly any preparation for this brave new world and the most commonly heard refrain is 'we haven't got a clue'. Before I selectively quote from a 53 page NPS ORA briefing document, here's some reader reflections:-  

"The sentencers will be required to impose a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement based on a number of days. The CRC will, post-sentence, decide what activity is to be undertaken. The contentious part for me is that the CRC can, if it deems it appropriate, 'complete' an RAR WITHOUT USING ALL OF THE DAYS. So the sentence is, in fact, determined by the CRC OM, not by the Court. Also, a 'day' is any single event and could be 10 minutes or three hours. It's all up to the CRC. The only checks and balances are the contract management process and we know about the MOJ's record on that. The potential for abuse and tokenism is massive. I fear for the credibility of community sentences, I really do."

"35 hours a week 'job search' (which is compulsory anyway if on JSA), will become part of the rehabilitation activity. All the privateers have to do is register the client with their employment team. Job done!"

"We had a 1.30 hour briefing on RAR and Through the Gate on Tues am. It sounds as though its going to be chaotic. We got a communication from NAPO chair today saying that one of the successful bidders for CRC had thought we were already working with the Through The Gate lot and was shocked to realise that we weren't - their bid had not taken into account ADDITIONAL work."

Overview of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 and Through the Gate

The Offender Rehabilitation Bill received Royal Assent on 13 March 2014. Two sections of the resulting Offender Rehabilitation Act (ORA) came into force on 1 June 2014 (creation of the new enforcement officer role for breaches of court orders, and a requirement that contracts for probation services set out provision for female offenders). The remaining sections of the ORA will come into force on 1 February 2015. The ORA makes changes to three main areas of the sentencing framework:

1) The expansion of licence to offenders released from short custodial sentences of less than 12 months.

2) Creation of a new Post-Sentence Supervision (PSS) period that follows licence for offenders released from custodial sentences of less than 2 years.

3) Changes to Community Order and Suspended Sentence Order requirements, particularly the introduction of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR).

Most of the new provisions of the ORA (with the key exception of changes to the drug testing requirement) will only apply to offenders who have committed an offence on or after 1 February 2015. Eligible caseloads will therefore take some time to build up.

The ORA will have several operational implications for the NPS with process changes and developments in practice required to embed the new provisions. The operational impact on court staff, report writers, staff involved in supervising offenders sentenced to community penalties and custodial sentences including the enforcement of these sentences, has been outlined in this Guidance.

Through the Gate (TTG) is the resettlement service that CRCs will provide for all those received into custody. TTG services will commence fully on 1 May but in some establishments services may be mobilised earlier. TTG begins with the Basic Custody Screening Tool (BCST):

BCST Part 1 is a needs assessment and will be completed by prison staff within 72 hours of reception. Questions in the BCST link to the 7 resettlement pathways, which are:

Accommodation
Education, employment and training
Health
Drugs and alcohol
Finance, debt and benefit
Children and Families
Attitudes, thinking and behaviour

BCST Part 2 is the resettlement plan and will be completed by CRC staff for all prisoners (including NPS) within 5 days of receiving BCST Part 1. The CRC will then know what resettlement needs a prisoner has, and decide how best to meet that need. There are a suite of resettlement services that the CRC will be contractually obliged to deliver to all offenders, and will be paid for this on a fee for service basis. These are:

Accommodation & employment brokerage
Finance and debt advice
Support for sex workers
Support for victims of domestic violence 

The CRC must also provide pre-release activity no sooner than 12 weeks before release. In addition to this, the CRC will provide additional rehabilitative services that they believe will reduce reoffending, and so gain payment on a Payment by Results (PbR) basis. These services will be available to the NPS on an ‘elective’ basis where it is an appropriate and cost effective response to tackling specific offender needs.

Pre Sentence Report Writers

The approach to report writing continues to be informed by the existing framework of assessment involving reference to Sentencing Guidelines, offence seriousness, risk of conviction/reoffending, EOASys Risk of Serious Harm (RoSH) screening and full analysis when required, together with RSR, OGRS, SARA and other specialist assessment tools, offender's criminogenic need and responsivity issues.

The ORA makes no direct change to this existing framework for report writing. The report writer will continue to inform the Court of their comprehensive assessment and make a proposal as to what particular risk factors and offending related needs may require addressing but not specifically ‘how’ this should be done. There are however a number of changes, either made by the ORA or the wider Transforming Rehabilitation programme, that report writers will need to take into account.

The first is the fact that the rehabilitative services offered by CRCs – either to offenders they are supervising or, in some cases, to NPS-retained offenders – are likely to change in the coming months as new providers put in place what was in their bids. Clearly, assessments and recommendations to the Court regarding public protection and rehabilitation can be better informed by an awareness of what interventions are available to offenders both in custody and the community. The range and availability of local interventions on offer will be regularly communicated by local CRCs to NPS report writers and sentencers. The nature of this communication will vary depending upon the CRC.

The second is the creation of the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) by the ORA, which replaces the existing Supervision and Specified Activity Requirements for offences committed on or after 1 February 2015. Under the RAR, the Court does not specify the activity or activities the offender must participate in. Instead, this is left to the discretion of the Responsible Officer (RO). The RAR therefore allows the RO the freedom to make their own professional judgement about the most appropriate means to address the risk factors outlined in the PSR and as such make decisions about the form that supervision will take. However, where a Court is considering imposing a RAR, report writers will still need to give the Court an indication of the type of services CRCs are likely to offer in that case. Report writers should assume these services are unchanged on 1 February unless the CRC has communicated a change to the interventions they offer.

Report writers may also need to consider likely allocation decisions as this may have an impact upon their completion of EOASys, the content of their report and their Court proposal, for example if it is a case deemed to be of high public interest.

Finally, in light of the new ORA requirement for offenders serving community orders or suspended sentence orders to seek permission before changing place of residence, it is of increased importance that Court staff and report authors gather sufficient information regarding the suitability of the offender's address. Relevant information should be recorded. There is no specific expectation at the point of sentence that NPS court officers will need to confirm suitability of address for the purpose of the PSS resident requirement where offenders are released direct from court.

Proposals

For offences committed before 1 February 2015 the options available for report proposals are as outlined in the relevant legislation, in particular CJA 2003 and LASPO 2012.

For offences committed on or after 1 February 2015 Supervision Requirements and all Specified Activity Requirements (SARs) will no longer be available. The ORA introduces the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR). Other requirements DRR, ATR, Mental Heath Treatment, UPW, Curfew/Electronic Monitoring, ACO, Exclusion, Residence, Prohibited Foreign Travel, Prohibited Activity Requirement) are still available and should be proposed where appropriate as before.

A RAR allows for the Responsible Officer (RO) to instruct the offender to attend activities, appointments, or both. The Court sets the maximum number of days of activities that the RAR can involve. The number of days stated is the maximum that the offender can be required to undertake but the allocated RO can decide to use fewer days at their discretion. By contrast, there is no limit set by the court on appointments, which can carry on for the duration of the RAR (which last for the length of the overall order).

It is for the court to first decide whether a Community Order (CO) or Suspended Sentence Order (SSO) with a RAR is an appropriate sentencing disposal and then to set the length of the sentence and the maximum number of activity days. Please note that the RAR does not allow for a minimum number of days only a maximum. The allocated RO is then responsible for deciding the content of the activity days, how they will be delivered, how frequently the offender attends and to whom. In some instances the content of the RAR activity may be decided pre sentence where there are bespoke interventions in place. So the Court may be aware of the proposed content, however the Court cannot set what specific rehabilitation activities should be delivered under the RAR.

Where a DRR, ATR, Mental Heath Treatment Requirement or an Accredited Programme is being proposed good practice suggests a RAR should also be proposed if there are additional needs. However, the requirements recommended should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. ROs can instruct offenders to report as needed under the auspices of the CO/SSO if there is no RAR in place, by virtue of sections 198 and 2220 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which require the RO to make any arrangements necessary for the requirements of the order, and which place a duty on the offender to keep in touch with the RO in accordance with any instructions given).

ROs can utilise the RAR activity days to require offenders to attend Accredited Programmes. However, if at the pre sentence report stage it is assessed that a particular Accredited Programme (known to be on offer) would be a suitable intervention, it would be regarded as good practice for the report writer to inform the Court. This therefore enables the Court to impose a named Accredited Programme requirement as part of the CO or SSO. 

Community Supervision

Rehabilitation Activity Requirement

Section 15 of the ORA introduces the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) for COs and SSOs. The RAR replaces the Supervision Requirement and all Specified Activity Requirements (SARs) in cases where the offence was committed on or after the 1 February 2015. However, the Supervision Requirement and the SAR remain for legacy cases where the offence was committed before this date.

The RAR is designed to provide maximum flexibility for probation providers to deliver rehabilitation activities during the sentence that address criminogenic needs and achieve a reduction in the likelihood of re-offending. The RO has discretion as to how use the RAR and as such decides what interventions are suitable for the offender to undertake. Activities which were formally covered by SARs can be included into the activities undertaken within a RAR.

Activity Days

A RAR can involve the RO instructing the offender to participate in activities, up to a maximum number set by the Court when sentencing. The RO can decide to use fewer days at their discretion. The Court specifies the end date of the CO and the end of the supervision period of the SSO. This is the date at which the RO stops being able to require the offender to attend activities (even if the maximum number of days has not been reached). The RAR therefore differs to unpaid work, where if the hours set by the court have not been completed within 12 months, the order automatically extends until they have been completed. The RO has the ability to complete the activity element of the RAR at any point before the end of the order.

An activity day is not defined in legislation, but it does not mean 24 hours of activity. Therefore, if an offender attends to an activity at 11.00am for 1 hour and then again at 2.00pm on the same day for 30 minutes then it counts as one day. If the offender attends on one day for an activity of 1 hour and then next day for an activity lasting 45 minutes then this counts as two activity days. The number of maximum days of activity set by the court cannot be exceeded.

Appointments and Activities

The RAR can be used for both the delivery of 1-2-1 supervision appointments and activities as required. In contrast to Specified Activity Requirements there are no set number of appointments that can be made by the Court. The RO can instruct the offender to attend appointments either with the RO or with someone else nominated by the RO. The RO still has the length of the CO or SSO supervision period to continue to supervise the offender by way of appointments if they so wish. This means that an offender can complete their activity days and still be required to keep appointments with their officer. It is therefore important that officers ensure that the content of the activities, the reporting requirements for these activities and supervision appointments are clearly recorded in the plan and understood by the offender.

The range of activities that may be included in the RAR is broad and the flexibility afforded by the requirement allows for innovative interventions to be delivered however they must be focused on rehabilitation. They can fulfil other purposes in addition to this – for example reparation or restorative justice. Whilst a RAR can include the delivery of an accredited offending behaviour programme. If the information regarding suitability is available at the pre-sentence stage it would be regarded good practice to provide this to sentencers. This will give the opportunity for the Court to specifically include a particular Accredited Programme as part of the CO / SSO.

A RAR should not be used to deliver any other requirements available under a CO / SSO – for example, drug treatment or unpaid work. This is because these requirements have particular safeguards associated with them that the RAR does not provide for. For example, the treatment requirements available under a CO / SSO require the offender’s consent, and the unpaid work requirement has safeguards with regards to the offender’s suitability.

The range and availability of local interventions on offer will be regularly communicated by local CRCs to NPS staff and sentencers. The nature of this communication will vary depending upon the CRC.

Cautionary Tales

Jonathan Aitken's ambush and smug appearance on media channels over Easter has served to stimulate quite a lively debate about the use of volunteers and mentors within the criminal justice system. It serves to highlight the whole murky world of politically motivated and funded 'think tanks' that churn out stuff in support of their political chums. But it also serves to confirm how shaky and naive the foundations are of the whole TR omnishambles agenda. 

Of course volunteers have always played an important part in probation work, but they have to be very carefully selected, trained and supported, or things can go seriously wrong. They are most definitely not a cheap or quick fix to solving reoffending and if prospective bidders for our work think that, they will quite quickly realise differently:-   

I am a PO in a high risk team and want to share two examples working with mentors/volunteers.

I was writing a PSR on a man for a violent offence who committed this whilst subject to the at risk period of a previous sentence. The mentor (working in a drugs agency) repeatedly contacted me to provide information of the man's progress and sought to both influence me and to gain insight into my assessment of him. I felt under some pressure from her and a mentor from the much lauded community farm where this man did some work experience. Both were called as character witnesses and his defence counsel indicated I had told lies in my report.

Alerted by the Court team over the lunch recess I drove to the Crown Court and the Judge was made aware the report author was in court. She stated to his counsel "I am not prepared to call the report author a liar" and I was not called. When sentenced to a lengthy custodial sentence the man shouted in open court "F*** Off I never want to see you again, you said this wouldn't happen" to the poor woman. The Judge stated he had pulled the wool over the eyes of everyone except the Probation Officer. I had to comfort her outside the court, she was distraught as they had been in an intimate relationship and she was unaware of much of his offending history. Later, evidence came to light he had been dealing class A drugs in both projects.

The second concerned a volunteer with a church based charity working with asylum seekers who wanted to support a sex offender after he came out on licence. She wanted him to reside in her home because he was a thoroughly decent man. She was a grandmother with her grandchildren visiting her home regularly. He was high ROSH to children and police risk managers and my manager authorised disclosure which she simply refused to believe. She did not have any frame of reference to understand the risk she was inviting into her home. Under his licence he was not allowed to reside with her but her willingness to help him at all costs born out of genuine altruism, really undermined the relationship between PO and client. Eventually we were able to rescue this and he went on to successfully complete his licence having been supported by me to gain suitable independent accommodation and employment. It just is not that simple is it Mr Aitken?

I notice that Pat Waterman, Chair of Greater London Napo Branch, has reminded us of a recent very disturbing case:-

A Cautionary Tale for Mr Grayling

Those of you who have been working in probation for some time will know that a good volunteer can be worth their weight in gold. They can provide the additional help and support that so many of our clients need. But they need to be supervised and are no substitute for professionally trained staff.

Earlier this year, one of my members, Terry Wilson, in giving evidence in the trial of one of his clients accused, with others, of carrying out a murder in a joint enterprise last year said he was shocked to discover that he was in a relationship with his support mentor. The woman, who was also standing trial for Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs and Perverting the Course of Justice, had been the client's mentor while he was in Portland prison and on his release.

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10946866.Court_hears_of__shock__over_alleged_murderers_relationship_with_mentor/?ref=erec

Perhaps Mr Grayling needs to think again before he sells off a large part of our work to private companies who, in order to make a profit, are bound to try and cut staff costs by using "so-called" mentors.