Alphabet Soup at NPS

As has been noted many times on this blog, attention tends to focus on the operation of the CRCs and discussion of NPS matters has become somewhat frustrated due to the inculcation of civil service secrecy and bureaucracy. Thanks to a reader forwarding the following, we can gain considerable insight into how the command and control ethos of a uniformed service is so completely changing the nature and operation of the probation element. Is this mushrooming alphabet soup of bloody acronyms really why many people wanted to become probation officers? Surely we need to bear this in mind as the call for reunification grows:- 

TTG Newsletter Edition 31 February 2019

Mobilisation of the enhanced TTG specification continues… 

Welcome to the latest edition of TTG News. I think it’s true to say that everyone involved in the world of TTGI has been very busy with the mobilisation of the enhanced TTG specification over the last few months as we move towards delivery of the service from the 1 April. We are happy to announce that on the 1 February, both Reducing Reoffending Partnership CRCs (SWM and DLNR), went live with the enhanced TTG specification in 10 Prisons namely - HMPs Foston Hall, Nottingham, Oakwood, Ranby, Sudbury, Birmingham, Brinsford, Dovegate, Drake Hall and Leicester where RRP are the lead host. They also went live as the host CRC in HMPs Peterborough Prison and Hewell. 

The HQ TTGI team continues to work with CRCs to assist them in their mobilisation of the enhanced TTG service and the central team have now visited most resettlement prisons across England and Wales. We would like to express our gratitude to all involved with the organisation of these meetings and for the warm welcome that we have received when visiting these prisons. 

In this edition of TTG News we have two sections focusing on stakeholder engagement - the TTG HMIP event that took place in London earlier this month and the resettlement prison visits we have been doing as a team.

Through the Gate Workshop, Learning from Research, HMIP and Best Practice

An engaging, interactive and operationally focused workshop on Through the Gate took place at Petty France on 4 February. It brought together all key stakeholders including CRCs, supply chain partners, NPS, prison staff, other voluntary sector organisations, HMIP Probation, MoJ Policy, Contract Management, Operational Assurance and Prison and Probation Analytical Services. There was also a visitor from MoJ Japan, Kohtaro Yamashita. The event focused on the new enhanced Through the Gate specification with learning from research, HMIP and best practice.

The Executive Director of Community Interventions, Ian Poree, set the scene for the event. He explained “I would like to echo the message from Amy Rees, Director General, that we now have an opportunity to make a long lasting and wide-reaching change across the criminal justice system including in prisons, where probation, whilst working alongside prison officers, can help people through their sentence and prepare them for release. The new enhanced Through the Gate service is central to this and is of critical importance for prisons in helping to support the creation of a rehabilitative culture and in ensuring safety, decency and a reduction in violence. When prisoners have a sense of hope and optimism for their future in the outside community and a plan for how to achieve what they want, they are much more likely to behave well towards others.” 

The first session was delivered by Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx from the HMPPS Evidence Based Practice Team. Her presentation focused on Procedural Justice. 

• Research shows that when people believe the process of applying the law (how decisions are made, rather than what decision is made) is fair, it influences their views and behaviour. 
• When people feel treated fairly and justly, they have more confidence in authority, see this as more legitimate, and they are more likely to accept and abide (or commit to abide) by decisions/rules/sanctions/the law. 

The second session was delivered by Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx from HMIP Probation. She provided an overview of findings from the latest inspections and their standard – Are the Through the Gate services personalised, coordinated and address the service user’s resettlement needs? Further details can be obtained via this link. Unfortunately, HMIP Prisons were unable to join us at the event due to other commitments but requested a copy of the slides. 

The final session of the day was delivered by the two members of the TTG Implementation team Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxxx from the Community Interventions Business Delivery Unit. This session provided an overview of the enhanced Through the Gate specification, explained both the HMI Probation Standards and HMI Prison Expectations, evaluated existing performance and detailed expected benefits of the change.

Development of Basic Custody Screening Tool 

The HQ TTGI team are currently working with MoJ Digital Studio to develop the BCS 2 tool. This includes aligning the BCS 1 to encompass the requirements of the enhanced specification and auto fill areas of the BCS 2. It also includes development of the BCS 2 to align with the additional requirements outlined in the enhanced specification, identifying level 1, 2 & 3 activity. We are currently in the development stage process and will keep you updated as the project develops. The changes to the form will be in place by 1 April and further guidance will be sent to users before that date. 

We are keen to ensure that CRCs are involved in the roll out of the updated BCS 2 tool and will be updating the BCS 2 training tool and OASys guidance documents accordingly. As the tool is developed we will be engaging with some CRC partners for their viewpoint and to assist with any other development activity.

NPS referrals for enhanced Through the Gate (TTG) services in non-resettlement prisons

To support the successful implementation of the enhanced Through the Gate (TTG) specification as a universal service for all prisoners prior to release from custody, an improved set of arrangements for the referral and delivery of TTG services to prisoners due to be released from non-resettlement prisons will be implemented from 1 April 2019. 

Each year, there are a proportion of prisoners released from non-resettlement prisons (including specialist sex offender and FNO prisons), rather than being moved to resettlement prisons pre-release. This occurs for a number of reasons, including operational demand and risk management. To ensure these prisoners have access to the TTG services pre-release, relevant CRCs will make the same TTG service available to all prisoners due to be released from non-resettlement prisons as in resettlement prisons. These services are included on Part 1 of the CRC Rate Cards for purchase by the NPS Responsible Officer. 

Referral to and delivery of the TTG services in non-resettlement prisons has been underused to date and the majority of prisoners released are not being referred to, or receiving, these services as intended. The implementation of the enhanced TTG specification provides an opportunity to review the arrangements in place to secure these services for prisoners’ pre-release, and the following model is intended for implementation alongside the enhanced TTG service. 

Minimum Level of Purchase (MLP) guarantee 

CRC Change Notice 27 (CCN27) introduced an adjustment to the Fee for Use (FFU) payment mechanism into the CRC contracts, comprising a MLP guarantee against all Rate Card services, and a Minimum Level of Service (MLS) requirement on CRCs. 

For 19/20, the MLP guarantee will be set at a higher % rate of forecasted volumes for releases from nonresettlement prisons, providing CRCs with additional financial certainty against this element of the total FFU forecasted spend, with the expectation that this additional certainty will allow for TTG services in non-resettlement prisons to be sufficiently resourced against anticipated release volumes. 

NPS Referral process 

The implementation of the increased MLP % guarantee, while intended to secure service delivery, will continue to require the NPS Responsible Officer to identify planned releases from their caseloads and make a referral to the relevant CRC in order to purchase the enhanced TTG resettlement service. 

It is intended therefore that NPS Responsible Officers and CRCs will be supported through a better-defined referral process as follows: 

• NPS ROs will identify cases due for release from non-resettlement prisons 
• 15 weeks prior to release, the NPS RO will notify the relevant CRC of the planned release through the NDelius NSI function 
• The RO will request the CRC to review the assessment (BCST2) where one exists, or in some cases where there has been no assessment, to carry this out, and notify the NPS RO once complete. 
• The RO will then confirm and agree the delivery by the CRC of the enhanced TTG service as required (and as specified on the CRC Rate Cards) during the 12 weeks pre-release. 
• The CRC should inform the RO as and when the TTG services are delivered. 

Non-Resettlement prisons servicing multiple NPS Divisions 

It is recognised that in many cases a non-resettlement prison will be releasing prisoners to multiple NPS Divisions. As a consequence, the total value of the MLP guarantee for these services will be calculated against total forecasted release volumes per prison and per CRC, as opposed to total forecasted release volumes by NPS Divisions. To support referral from NPS Divisions to CRCs delivering in non-resettlement prisons, CRCs will be asked to provide a referral contact point which will be used to collate a national list and made available to NPS Divisions. 

Next Steps 

You will appreciate that this approach requires some critical dependencies to be met, in order to enable both the CRCs and NPS to focus on delivery and ensuring the resettlement needs of this particular group of prisoners are met pre-release. A meeting was held on the 8th February with senior leaders from CRCs and the NPS, clarifying the following: 

• Forecasted release data for 19/20 and volumes by prison and CPA has been collated and this has been made available to CRCs and NPS. 
• The collation of the forecasted release data allows for the total FFU value and MLP % guarantee to be calculated and apportioned to CRCs accordingly. This is dependent on CRCs confirming any revisions to the Rate Card TTG services. CRCs have been requested to provide proposed Rate Card prices by 15th February. 

The identification of all CRC referral contact arrangements (e.g. mailbox address) is necessary in order to facilitate the referral arrangements. CRC support in providing these details is necessary and the national contact list should be in place prior to the implementation of the enhanced TTG service at the start of 19/20

Joined up work with OMiC

During our prison meetings, many prison governors and directors have raised the issue of the roll out of OMiC alongside that of the enhanced TTG specification. It is important that our service users understand the difference between TTG and OMiC and, as part of the mobilisation, we have asked CRCs to develop communications products to raise awareness of the enhanced TTG specification and the new service being provided. This formulates part of each CRC’s enhanced TTG roll out and CRC TTG implementation leads will be discussing these plans with prison governors and directors and providing promotional literature. 

To further enhance this, the HQ TTGI team continue to work with the OMiC Team to ensure a joined-up approach with the mobilisation of the enhanced TTG specification and OMiC. We continue to attend Divisional Implementation Board (DIB) meetings to discuss this joined up approach with Prison Implementation Managers and the way in which it supports integrated working between, CRCs, prisons and NPS staff.

--oo00oo--

Update from the OMiC Project Lead

December and January turned out to be very busy months for OMIC – both for the national team and in activity across prison and probation and particularly so in Wales where they are now live with testing the OMIC case management for Welsh prisoners in Wales. A big thank you to staff and managers in Wales! We now look forward to working with Wales on learning the lessons. In the national OMIC team we have been busy recruiting and at the end of February we will be back up to full strength. We are delighted that Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx is joining the team as the Deputy Lead, Xxx Xxxxxxx from Drake Hall is joining us to lead on key work and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx have also recently joined the team from Lancaster Farms and Hewell.

On the key work side, there are now 87 prisons across the male closed estate where implementation has started and 34 prisons which have completed their implementation activities. That means over 30,000 prisoners have an allocated key worker! That is a significant achievement and something everyone involved should be proud of.

Having said that, we know that maintaining consistent delivery of key work is going to be challenging and the OMIC team are going to focus our attention on this over the coming months. To support prisons maintaining key work delivery we have developed dashboards on New NOMIS which set out really helpful performance data, including average time between reception and first key work session and how many sessions are being delivered – please make use of them!

Continuing the digital theme, OMIC EQUIP is now live! All unchanged custodial offender management processes and associated documents are now available to view by NPS and prison colleagues working in Offender Management Units. Please make sure you can access them and use them – they are a real opportunity to provide assurance that you are following the correct process and not doing more or less than is required!

Planning for starting case management implementation in September 19 is going ahead at pace and a number of key decisions have been made in January to support this. These include confirming the model for the women’s estate after consulting with all our unions. This model builds on the excellent relationships already in place between staff and women and recognises the different challenges and opportunities in the women’s estate, where self-harm and the complex needs of some women are of significant concern. Key work and case management will be fully integrated in the women’s estate with complexity of need a key driver for deciding how we support the women.

The other important decision taken during January is the model for Privately Managed Prisons – please see the article in this issue of the update for further details. We have also agreed that this is the model we will use in public sector prisons where we are not able to deploy sufficient numbers of probation officers into prisons. Following this decision, we are working with the Chairs of the Divisional Implementation Boards on the detailed planning and sign-off process for go-live.

We hope you are finding these monthly updates useful. If there is anything you would like to see or hear more about then let us know at: omic@hmps.gsi.gov.uk and don’t forget to follow us on twitter for the latest news and updates omic@hmpps.

Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
OMiC Project Lead

Case Management Implementation Update

Mitigating vacancies:

Preparation for the switch-on of the OMiC case management model from 16th September 2019 is now gathering pace and momentum. Divisional Implementation Boards (DIBs) are implementing a range of activities as agreed in their Implementation Plans. In particular they are currently scoping out where their vacancies may still exist come September 2019. DIBs will be reporting back to the OMiC Project in early February 2019 on the outcome of this joint HMPPS workforce forward planning exercise.

To assist with the preparation for implementation of OMiC case management the DIBs have received two documents from the OMiC Project. The Mitigating Vacancies document outlines a number of actions that could be taken to enable delivery of OMiC case management whilst full resourcing levels are being realised beyond September 2019. The Transfer Principles document outlines the process of identifying which existing long term NPS custodial cases are to be transferred to the new Prison Offender Manager roles from 16th September onwards, and the activities needing to be undertaken over the next nine months in readiness for the transfer of these cases. Both these documents are accessible through your DIB Implementation Manager and through the Senior Leaders Bulletin.

SPO line management responsibilities:

The proposed line management arrangements for custodial based Senior Probation Officers to be line management by the prison Governor, with contact for continuous professional development support from the community senior NPS manager, has been tested in six prisons since July 2018.

A lessons learnt evaluation has been presented to the OMiC Programme Board with a number of recommendations to support of implementation. As a result the OMiC Project is developing an approach to engage more directly with prison Governors on their new role and responsibilities arising from accountability for the case management of long term custodial cases.

We hope to enhance the understanding of prison Governors in the role of the SPO deployed to manage the delivery and quality of OMiC case management within each establishment. Organisational Development are also working with each of the DIBs to support a greater awareness of the shared working practices, knowledge and values that will support the delivery and management of OMiC case management. Once this engagement work has been completed a full roll-out of the new line management arrangements can then be agreed through the national OMiC Project Board.

Case management in Privately Managed Prisons

The OMIC Board decided that high risk of harm cases require probation officer oversight in privately managed prisons (PMPs) and the OMIC team have been working on how we best deliver this. We held a number of workshops, including meetings with senior leaders from NPS, PMPs, contract management and policy leads. Following these the OMIC Board has agreed that we will implement a case support model and furthermore that we will use this model in public sector prisons where we are not able to deploy sufficient numbers of probation officers.

The case support model provides oversight of all high-risk cases by qualified probation officers and is a variation of a model of delivery in common usage across NPS. In this model, each prisoner identified as high risk (tiers A and B) and where responsibility sits in the prison, will have an allocated probation officer who is ultimately responsible for managing the risk the offender poses. The case management support role will be undertaken by a range of staff currently employed in PMPs as offender supervisors and includes Prison Custody Officers and contracted staff.

The probation officer would be responsible for OASys risk assessment, including initial engagement with prisoners, reviews of the assessment, sentence planning meetings and all work in relation to MALRAP, MAPPA, parole as well as being involved in the handovers to the community offender manager. This does not include conducting one to one prisoner supervision, which will need to be carried out by the contractor’s staff.

The case management support staff would undertake specific work identified in the sentence plan such as one to one supervision with prisoners, referrals, information gathering and liaison with other agencies including contact with VLOs.

Current contracts with PMPs are output or outcome based and the Authority provides the required policies or frameworks and the contractor then decides how to deliver this to an agreed price. In practice this means that the PMPs have adopted very different staffing models and approaches to offender supervision in each of the prisons. We will therefore only model new tasks and not the total staffing requirements for PMPs. We have assessed the new and changed tasks in the OMIC case management model in comparison to the current model in order to support commercial negotiations.

Let's Have a RAR Day

With the MoJ publishing revised guidance, now seems as good a time as any to consider what those mysterious 'RAR days' are all about:-  

1. What is the rehabilitation activity requirement?

This guidance is to explain what the rehabilitation activity requirement (known as ‘RAR’) is and how it should be used. This guidance has been produced by the Ministry of Justice probation policy team.

The RAR is one of the requirements that can be included within a community order or suspended sentence order. The main purpose is to secure someone’s rehabilitation, restoring service users to a purposeful life in which they do not reoffend.

The RAR was introduced in 2014 under the Offender Rehabilitation Act to allow providers of probation services greater flexibility to decide on the best ways to rehabilitate individuals. Community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) were encouraged to access a diverse range of rehabilitation providers from the private, voluntary and social sectors.

The RAR replaces what would previously have been undertaken as part of both the supervision and specified activity requirements. What would have previously been known as ‘supervision’ is now split between RAR interventions and offender management activity by the responsible officer (RO). The RO oversees progress of the order and develops a close, trusting relationship with the individual to support them in successfully completing the requirements they’re subject to.

The RO plans with the service user how to use the ‘RAR days’ allocated by the court and which activities to take part in to help their rehabilitation, tailored to their specific needs.

2. RAR in sentencing

The court can decide to include a RAR as part of a community order or a suspended sentence order. They do not have to include a RAR. A RAR should be proposed when the person has clear rehabilitative needs, when appropriate activities are available and where these needs cannot be met by an accredited programme or a treatment requirement.

To assist sentencers, National Probation Service (NPS) court officers should make clear proposals that specifically identify the rehabilitative needs to be addressed and the number of days needed to do so.

Where needs can be met by an accredited programme or treatment requirement, this is the preferred intervention. This is because accredited programmes are evidence based and should achieve improved outcomes if provided to the right people in the right way. A RAR should only be allocated alongside an accredited programme if it can address additional rehabilitative activities that are not addressed by the programme. The RO can offer additional appointments to secure compliance and help maintain motivation.

Treatment requirements are delivered in partnership with locally commissioned substance misuse or mental health treatment services. These partnerships bring together the resources and skills to help those with mental health and substance misuse difficulties. Consent is required for all treatment requirements.

Drug rehabilitation requirements (DRRs) can be given when the court is satisfied that the service user is dependent on or misuses drugs, and that treatment is likely to help and is available.

Alcohol treatment requirements (ATRs) can be given when the court is satisfied that a service user is dependent on alcohol and that treatment is likely to help and is available. The service user’s dependency on alcohol does not have to have caused or contributed to the offence for which they’ve been convicted.

Mental health treatment requirements (MHTRs) can be given where the court is satisfied that an offender has a mental health condition that’s treatable either in a community setting or as an outpatient in a non-secure setting. MHTRs can be used for any mental health issue, including personality disorders, and the treatment offered can cover a wide range of interventions from therapy for depression and anxiety through to secondary and psychiatric care.

3. Assessing rehabilitative needs

A RAR could be used to address someone’s needs in the following areas:

• accommodation
• education, training and employment
• relationships
• lifestyle and associates
• non-dependent alcohol misuse (ATRs are intended for those who are alcohol dependent and DRRs for those who misuse illegal drugs)
• emotional management (MHTRs are intended for all diagnosed mental health conditions, apart from those that require a hospital or guardianship order)
• attitudes, thinking and behaviour
• finance, benefits and debt

These are the needs that evidence shows either predict reoffending if they are not met, or if they are addressed will contribute to the stability people need to be able to deal with other significant issues.

In general, the more of these needs the person has, the greater their risk of reoffending. The NPS advises the court in a pre-sentence report on an appropriate maximum number of RAR activity days that might be needed and why. The court cannot set what specific rehabilitation activities should be done.

The court specifies the maximum number of RAR days that someone can be instructed to participate in activities. The number of RAR days allocated should take into account the complexity and severity of someone’s needs and their risk of reoffending. The RAR is not designed to be used as a punishment.

There’s no maximum number of RAR days but the ‘offender group reconviction scale’ (OGRS) score, based on age, gender and criminal history, should be the main guide to the number of days proposed. This is because there’s a clear link between the OGRS score and the number of rehabilitative needs. Longer RARs should be reserved for those with a higher risk of reoffending as they will have the most needs to address.

OGRS score  Average number of needs  RAR intensity  Guideline number of RAR days

0 to 24%        2.4                                                                          n/a
25 to 49%      3.2                                      Low intensity          RAR 1 to 15 days
50 to 74%      4.4                                      Medium intensity    RAR 15 to 25 days
75 to 90%      4.4                                      High intensity         RAR 25 to 60 days
Over 90%      6.2                                      High intensity         RAR 25 to 60 days

People with an OGRS score of less than 25% present a low likelihood of reoffending and are unlikely to benefit from rehabilitative interventions. It should only be in exceptional circumstances that they’re identified as needing a RAR. There would need to be clear indication of dynamic risk factors linked to an increased risk of reoffending.

In relation to identifying the rehabilitative needs of sex offenders, OGRS is not a good predictor of sexual reoffending. The factors most strongly predictive of sexual offending include: unusual sexual interests, attitudes that support sexual offending, poor emotional relationships with adults and a lack of self-management. The NPS court officer needs to assess if any of these factors exist and should be addressed by RAR interventions. If they’re eligible for an accredited programme, that should be the intervention of choice. It may be necessary to propose more RAR days if other stabilisation needs are identified.

The pre-sentence report should provide enough information about someone’s needs for the court to understand what their RAR is likely to focus on and why this should contribute to their rehabilitation.

People under probation supervision frequently have a wide range of needs. The important task is to identify the needs that, for that person, need addressing to reduce their risk of reoffending.

4. RAR in sentence planning

After sentencing, the assigned RO completes an initial assessment and, with the service user, decides on the interventions that will be done within the RAR, how they’ll be delivered, how often the person attends and what outcomes they’re aiming to achieve. This forms part of the ‘sentence plan’. It’s important to focus on the needs that are predictive of reoffending.

A RAR ‘day’ does not mean continuous activity throughout a whole day. All activities need to be enforceable. The activities that count as 1 day could include:

• individual face-to-face planned and structured sessions designed to address identified needs
• a planned activity with a third-party provider
• 2 or more separate planned activities or sessions in the same day

If someone’s circumstances change in the course of the order, the RO can amend the number and type of activities to ensure they continue to meet the person’s needs. However, the number of RAR days cannot exceed that proposed by the court.

The sentence given by the court states the maximum number of RAR days that someone can be instructed to attend. If the RO believes that the agreed outcomes have been achieved through a lower number of RAR days than specified by the court, or through an alternative method, this needs to be recorded on Delius (the probation case management system) with the reasons explained.

5. What counts as a RAR activity

A RAR activity must be a pre-planned, structured intervention to address someone’s identified need to support their rehabilitation. The RO and the service user should agree the desired outcomes ahead of the activities, so that progress can be tracked.

Probation providers will have different interventions they can offer as part of a RAR to address the needs that are strongly predictive of reoffending. These are likely to include activities in the areas of:

• accommodation
• education, training and employment
• relationships
• lifestyle and associates
• non-dependent alcohol misuse (ATRs are intended for those who are alcohol dependent and DRRs for those who misuse illegal drugs)
• emotional management (MHTRs are intended for all diagnosed mental health conditions)
• attitudes, thinking and behaviour
• finance, benefits and debt
• specific interventions for women

This is not a full list. Other activities could be included as a RAR as long as it’s planned, structured, clearly meets rehabilitative needs and there’s a rationale as to why it should work.

The activity could be as part of a group or could be individual ‘face-to-face’. An activity is usually delivered by a third party on behalf of the RO, but could be by the RO themselves if there’s no existing intervention available.

The RO must also undertake additional offender management activities, which include motivation, promoting and sustaining hope, supporting compliance, enforcement, public protection and overseeing the overall direction and sequencing of activities in the order. These appointments do not count as RAR days and the RO can offer as many of these as they feel are necessary during the course of the order. There will also be other unstructured discussions between the RO and the service user to support them in addressing their identified needs. These discussions are crucial to the building of a positive relationship with the service user, but do not count as RAR days.

6. Selecting RAR activities

The RO needs to understand the person’s needs that lie behind the offence and select an existing intervention to addresses these. If no suitable activity exists then they must record this on Delius (the probation case management system) with the reasons explained.

Examples of activities could include:

• programmes designed to address specific issues such as emotional management
• enforceable appointments with a specialist organisation to help achieve outcomes relating to housing or financial needs
• working with a mentor, for example to attend college, go to the library or help prepare a CV
• structured sessions with a RO, third sector provider or in-house specialist to help improve an individual’s ability to solve problems, make good decisions or access and maintain engagement with other services

7. Delivering RAR activities

RAR activities can be delivered by a sub-contracted provider (where there are arrangements to monitor attendance, as these are legally enforceable), an in-house specialist or by the RO. When the RO is delivering RAR interventions, this should be recorded as such, as it’s distinct from their offender management activity. The RO should ensure the service user is engaging with the process and making progress.

All appointments instructed by the RO, whether delivered by the RO or other RAR provider, are enforceable.

The RO should be assessing whether the person’s needs are being met through the planned interventions and making changes if appropriate. The provider of the RAR activity should be reporting back on attendance, progress and suggested next steps.

The service user cannot be instructed to attend more RAR days than those given in their sentence. The RAR days do not necessarily need to be spaced out for the duration of the sentence, they can be completed whenever is most appropriate.

After completing the RAR activities to address the risk of reoffending, the RO can signpost the service user to further support if needed.

The outcome of the RAR intervention needs to be recorded on Delius. This should reflect whether the desired outcomes that were agreed as part of the initial sentence plan have been achieved. The RO needs to confirm that this counts as the completion of the RAR. If fewer days have been completed, the RO needs to record the rationale for taking this decision, a description of the progress that’s been made and the outcome achieved.

Responses to Demise of TR 6

Here we have some thoughts on probation training post TR from the Probation Institute in their latest magazine:-

Probation Training and Qualifications: An overview

This issue of Probation Quarterly goes out during the important consultation on the future of Probation itself. It is particularly timely to focus part of this PQ on probation training; the future of training and ongoing professional development feature in the consultation and are of great significance, but there is a risk that these issues will attract less attention than the questions about the future structures and systems. 

The history of probation training over the last 50 years is in many ways the history of probation and reflects the importance of professional training. The decision to retain probation practice within social work training and in higher education in the early 1970s post Seebohm helped to affirm probation as a profession. The retention, after an extensive campaign, of probation training in higher education in the late 1990s, albeit separated from social work as a distinct qualification, continued the professional status.

Whichever way the consultation takes us in 2018 - if indeed this is genuine consultation - there may well be further challenges to the higher education status. Question 10 is a very open question inviting a range of ideological answers: “Which skills, training or competencies do you think are essential for Responsible Officers authorised to deliver probation services, and how do you think these differ depending on the types of offenders staff are working with?” 

The consultation paper barely uses the term “probation officer” or “probation services officer”. It uses the terms “Responsible Officer” and “Offender Manager” somewhat interchangeably. The naming and defining of job roles needs to be addressed not fudged in this consultation. These are critical issues but there are also bigger gains to pursue in the arena of training and professional development.

The decision not to regulate training and qualifications in TR was one of the many serious ideological errors and one which threatened to destroy the consistency of professional training for probation staff - Probation Officers and Probation Services Officers. 

A Level 6 (Degree Level) Apprenticeship is currently being developed, with PQiP at its heart. This Apprenticeship is being developed by an Employer Development Group led by NPS and CRCs and is intended for all those currently qualified through PQiP as Probation Officers. 

This is an important development not least in having successfully achieved the support of the majority of the CRCs after two years of uncertainty in which a number of the CRCs gave serious consideration to developing their own qualifications for their own “equivalent” roles. Had the Apprenticeship not offered hard cash to the CRCs it is unlikely that they would have cooperated.

The new breed of Apprenticeships led by the new Apprenticeship Institute is far from settled down however, and care will be needed to support and ensure the high quality of this Degree Level Apprenticeship and it’s implementation. In parallel is the development of the Level 3 Apprenticeship replacing the VQ3 for those roles designated Probation Services Officers and equivalent roles in both NPS and the CRCs. It is well documented that this group of practitioners in both NPS and in CRCs carry responsibilities which would once have fallen to a fully qualified Probation Officer and that consistency of training and qualifications is critical for this group also. There is a pressing need to resolve the naming of these job roles.

An important message for the consultation is that training and qualifications must be regulated for clear roles with agreed role definitions. By regulation we mean legislation. The consultation also seeks views on the proposed Professional Register - how this should operate and for whom. In this proposal there is the opportunity to resolve the job titles and regulate the training and qualifications for agreed roles. It should be stated very clearly in response to the consultation that the Professional Register must include any contracted private providers of Probation Services, should these continue.

Not everyone in MOJ is committed to training Probation Officers in higher education. The closer working relationship with the Prison Service and the introduction of Offender Managers in prisons has prompted questions about the disparity between prison and probation training. Respondents to the consultation should take the opportunity to reinforce the importance of a degree level qualification and why it is so important. Bear in mind that policing has now accepted that a degree level qualification is a necessary outcome of initial training for police constables.

There are gaps in training for probation officers and these include brokering and supporting appropriate commissioned services, irrespective of the role of the private sector. 

What of bigger prizes? Given the increasing responsibilities of the role this may be an opportunity to suggest that the qualification for a “Probation Services Officer” and their equivalents should be raised to Vocational Level 4. Police Community Support Officers have introduced a Level 4 Apprenticeship.

For the voluntary sector? The emerging Level 3 Apprenticeship was initially designed to include the voluntary sector. St Giles Trust, PACT and RISE each contributed and supported the draft standard. This support has been lost through delay but in our view this could be rebuilt. The purpose would be to enable voluntary organisations to be a genuine part of the development and management of an appropriate, aligned Apprenticeship, and to draw down funding for training and assessment standards which their practitioner staff could reliably achieve. This step would extend professional training and qualifications to the voluntary sector for the first time, inviting them to join the Professional Register.

A further prize would be to extend the Professional Register to Offender Managers (at least) in the Prison Service and to Youth Offending Practitioners. The benefit of this reach would be to establish one Professional Body across Probation, Prisons, Youth Justice and the voluntary sector working in justice. This would be an independent statutory body having significant scope to advance consistency and professional development across services, a better prospect of resourcing and a breadth of authority currently lacking in any forum.

Helen Schofield 

Acting CEO, Probation Institute

Pick of the Week 45

I decided last week that, in order to prioritise my own health, I must stop straining to do a decent job for my community and my clients, and just do the basic minimum, which is of course to tick boxes and pound a keyboard entering repetitively, stuff into crumbly IT systems. Clock off when my hours are worked. No thinking. Keep client contact to absolute minimum. Then it hit me : what is in effect "working to rule" is what I am being instructed to do by HMPPS.

*****
I agree. The work to rule is not doable without departing from every valuable aspect of the job. Proper resistance will require sacrifice and risk and uncertainty. And not many are prepared to go down that road.

*****
Unless UK government (read taxpayer) is prepared to underwrite the liabilities (more than just their debt) of outsourcing giants, then the outsourcing game related to important public services is busted. I don't think the government can stitch together a rescue package as it would be political suicide. I think the banks are shy, the numbers don't add up, add in some economic and political uncertainty and hey presto, the magic outsourcing tree is not an attractive investment. Or do those that are still standing pick over the pieces and ask for a premium? The provision of important public services increasingly looks like market competition in extracting profit from the UK taxpayer, rather than anything remotely about delivering quality public services.

*****
Probation will never fit into the civil service, the unyielding bureaucracy is stifling! The existing systems just don't get us and as we are just a tiny part of a massive organisation, no one cares! I'm an NPS PO and can sincerely say we are completely broken and not fit for purpose.

*****
Don't see many colleagues feeling superior in my NPS office except for those usual suspects that have always been that way! A lot of us wish we had got sifted to CRC now because at least we might have got a chance to get out with a bit of a pay out! Of course it wouldn't be like that big fiddle the senior managers sorted for themselves, but in my area we are still hearing tales of managers getting much bigger severance packages than lower grades!

*****
Of course they did - they were responsible for the sifting, for deciding who got what, who was eligible for the enhanced payout, for scheduling who could transfer where. How many ex-Trust staff were paid out under the enhanced scheme, then re-employed by either the CRC or NPS, while admin, PSO & PO staff were directed to the CRCs then cast adrift with a much-reduced pay-off - despite the MoJ handing over the fully costed EVR funds to the CRC, i.e. the £multi-million bung from the Modernisation Fund which the CRCs pocketed. They were only ever interested in themselves. Jim's blog-piece today refers to a highly relevant & oft-repeated mantra: "if you were crap with clients, you got promoted."

*****
TR will probably be seen as the straw that broke the probation camels back, but despite the gold award thats much mentioned, I think it was already broken prior to privatisation and the split. I think it's right to say bringing everything into to the fold of the NPS is not the answer. NPS and CRC are two halves of the same problem. The past 20 years has seen so many changes, tweeks, and reforms to the probation services (probably more reforms then the welfare system), it's long lost its ethos. That in part is a consequence of being part of the civil service and being shaped by political ideology and dogma, rather then pragmatic and logical solutions to the problems your clients present you with. 

The focus of the service has been changed to a model of process and outcome, directed by political policy, and shifted away from a localised and community based support network. In short its an agency of state, directed by the state, and subject to whatever the political mood happens to be. It should in fact be a service rooted on academia and evidence based development. The only solution I can see for probation now, is not to focus on how to bring the two parts back together, but for someone to reinvent the wheel.

*****
The establishment by Grayling of a central government controlled public sector Probation Service was a very odd aspect of TR and was a compromise position with NOMS who feared a backlash when private providers inevitably cocked up with a high risk, high profile case. It was also suspected by some political insiders to be the price of Labours support with the exception of Jezza and Johnny Mc who supported Napo - remember that many Labour MPs voted with the coalition for TR. Sadiq Khan Opposed TR publicly. 

The seriousness lameness of the NPS as a service was demonstrated by Sonia Crozier recently when things happen in the NPS you can just apologise on the beeb and still draw your salary each month, safe in the various layers of bureaucracy that enables third rate civil servants to carry on as no one really expects them to be better than useless. In the CRCs boards of directors are far more ruthless as MTCnovo directors and CEOs have found out, though the pay outs are better.

It is likely that the government will start making it possible for CRCs to start paying their staff more than NPS staff irrespective of performance because in the Tory deluded vision of the world the public sector cannot be seen as preferable to the innovative and effective private sector, otherwise they would place themselves in a self imploding ideological loop and disappear up their own bottoms, leaving behind nothing but a whiff of sulphur and a bionic badge.

*****
Sonia Crozier's performance at the Justice Committee and in tv interview with Suzanne Reid (repeated tonight I think) was appalling on both occasions; very lacklustre at Justice Committee and like a terrified rabbit caught in glare of car headlights with Suzanne Reid. Bizarre to apologise for shortcomings of VL set-up when the main area of identified concern (the concept of "eligible" victims who are only ones offered opportunity to opt into VL contact) is not the creation or choice of Probation Service, but whatever MoJ/Noms/ CJS bods that devised that system. I thought the only issues Dame Glenys Stacey picked up on were poor style of letter writing and a gap in annual contact over a year or possibly two until resumed again. I understand the Inspector considered that the VLOs had gone over and above to try and get victim views prior to the OH.

*****
Not much has changed from the 2014 implementation of Chris Grayling’s rehabilitation revolution to Sonia Crozier’s 2018 appalling probation apology on ITV. Since being forced into the NPS I’ve learnt 3 things during these 4 years of hell at work;

1. That the NPS and CRC’s are as bad as each other, two sides of the same dirty coin.
2. That being a third-rate ‘civil servant’ basically means taking it in the rear by the Ministry of Justice, and saying thank you when it hurts.
3. Probation doesn’t do any of what it says on the tin. If you are willing to lie about this to staff and clients alike, and if you are crap with clients, you get promoted.

*****
Clearly we can’t go back as too much needs to be undone without causing another crash. The answer is devolve all responsibility of probation services to PCCs. The PCC is answerable to Parliament and their communities. They appoint a chief and the chief appoints the senior team. Local delivery of probation fit for their community. If your PCC hangs their political colours to a Tory mast. the community gets the service they voted for. No need for HMPPS, they can drop the silent ‘P’ and look after the prison estate which can be the civil servant club.

How to find the lost soul of NPS and CRC staff...... well go back to an obscure date in mid November 2013. Remember comrades, the arbitrary date set by MoJ. The musical chairs music stopped on that date. Whatever chair you sat on decided if you exit stage left or stage right. Nothing to do with the cream went to NPS and the rest went the other way. What ever cases you held determined the sift. Regardless of your previous experience and expertise, whether you were on long term sick or maternity leave, you had to fight for your spot... a few fights along the way, but you either got shafted royally or just plain-shafted dependant on your view point.

Now our Dame Glynis is a master of poking the stick at the CRCs, rightly so, we deserve it. But she is using an inspection model that is in direct contradiction to the CRC contracts. She criticises for not having rehabilitation measures in UPW, but HMPSS tell CRCs that it is a punitive sanction only and that’s what they must deliver. Chief cook and bottle washer Ian Mulholand of Interserve tells staff on his phone-in on 23 Jan, "we get paid for delivering the requirement as a punishment, no more than 2 acceptable absences in the life of the requirement. Return to court quickly with breach. That is what Interserve is paid for and that is what we will deliver, no if’s buts....."

The UPW requirement in all its guises has bedevilled Probation since 1972. No one really held Boards or Trusts to account for that failure, but now they beat us to death with that stick. 40 odd years of entrenched belief that it was not the front of house sentence it has now been elevated to. UPW the public and politicians get... programme and interventions don’t sell. Getafix was right when he said we are a monitoring and enforcement agency. That comment I suspect was levelled at both NPS and CRC. Good PO’s and PSOs went to the CRC. Both sides have bad ones as well so dial down the carping, let’s not engage in a pissing contest here. TR was bad for all. We are not civil servants nor privatised tick box merchants, we are practitioners of probation. Find the soul, it will take time but it’s there. Believe me, this madness will end and we need to be ready......

*****
Concerning UPW, I agree that things are changing from Management. Spreadsheet after spreadsheet regarding absences, example 200 hours UPW, full time worker with occasional childcare, illness etc. Panic, more than 2 acceptable absences? What! Professional judgement... No Way! Not allowed! BREACH or take back to Court to extend quick. Panic stations! Ridiculous state of affairs, got to agree that UPW is to be seen as the punitive community alternative to prison just around the corner. Agree that the public and media would accept this.

*****
Probation under PCC’s would be just as bad. Terrible idea, PCC’s are a mixed bag we’d move from being aligned to prisons to being aligned to the police, frying pan to fire. HMIP is suspect too, employs ex-CRC chief officers and sessional work for the Tories. And don’t think managers didn’t fix the sifting in some places.

*****
My point being they will never allow us to be stand alone. The PCC would appoint some form of probation board and separate out that responsibility from police. We work with police anyway but maintaining that separation of responsibility. We will never return to an advise, befriend and assist service. What we do is far too politicised now, and we need to be savvy. Get back to local delivery and local accountability.

*****
On another note - LDU heads in the NPS are now throwing around the term ‘Responsible Officer’ like bags of sweets. You can tell they are desperate for staff to use the term RO as opposed to PO/OM and/or practitioner! Another MoJ directive they all dance to!

*****
I always thought we should have gone on strike over the lack of investment in services which would rehabilitate those we work with rather than our own pay. There. It’s out now. That reluctance to ever invest properly time-wise or money wise or reputation-wise in promoting the chances and opportunities of those coming out of prison or those at risk of going there. Many were consistently excluded from the mainstream or vilified because of their background from toddlerhood. We should have struck over that continuing institutional failure to try to redress some of the imbalance in society as they have appeared before us, the shape of our ‘clientel’. Our skills with people would have been employed in persuading our service users to chance life as “winners”, to chance the changes required.

*****
Solidarity is a great thing. Just a shame it's in short supply amongst the probation workforce - who moan and groan and fail to unite. I gather some 750 NPS members allowed their membership to lapse as a consequence of check-off and CRC has membership declined by some 20%. No wonder pay erodes - there is no negotiating muscle.

There will be a strike – but only in la-la land. There may be a vote for a work-to rule, that trusty road to nowhere, that has never achieved anything in the public services. You have to go back to the car industry in the 1970's to find work-to-rules having any impact through the withdrawal of overtime and slowing-down production lines. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but there is nothing to be done. The employers know the probation workforce is docile and lacks any solidarity.

*****
How do you know they didn’t? Let’s focus on the here and now and support those who are negotiating. Napo will no doubt be balloting members to ratify pay offers soon. NPS will be left behind because let’s face it this government is never going to allow third rate civil servants to blow raspberries at the private sector. The more people who are in a union and active then the stronger our voice is to argue for a similar deal to colleagues in the CRCs. Lawrence is a bit naive to expect otherwise really. The fact is that no one anticipated how bad TR would be.

*****
Working to rule is industrial action that falls short of strike action, but it still requires a ballot. Working to rule however does require those involved in such action to know just what those rules are. The difficulty of working to rule in probation is that there is no universal model to identify with. All CRCs work differently, and all differ from NPS practices.

*****
Just back from a day at the coalface, I will catch the debate in a mo. Last hour or so of my working day in an interminable telephone call with SSCL which can be summarised as
"I am not getting paid this month?" 
"No"
"Why?"
"Machine says no"
"Can I speak to your manager?"
"No"
"Can I have her name?"
"No" followed by a chirpy email from on high inviting me to contribute to their "Great and Good" initiative, (eg suggestions box) as they want to know how best to harness and use the experience, commitment, perspective of staff blah blah. I had to sit on my hands to stop myself sending the expletive laden response that it was provoking.

*****
No pay rise and not getting paid. Chuffing 'ell that is... Nope, can't find the words to successfully express what I want to say. I am sure you will sort the latter, I know I have had to previously, but the former might drag on a while longer I guess. Of course both have consequences potentially, bills unable to be met and, to put it bluntly, getting poorer. On a cheerier note, it could be worse. Yours in humour and sympathy.

*****
I am surprised that there aren’t more comments regarding the ‘great and good ideas ‘ initiative. To publish this crass and ill thought out claptrap at the same time as stating that there is no money for your longest serving loyal employees shows how desperate the supposed leadership is. They ask how we can improve things with the courts, the public and all and sundry but have no concept of how disgraceful their conduct is towards what they used to say was their greatest asset, their staff. I have a whole host of ideas as to how we can improve service. Most of them consist of a wholesale change at the top.

*****
I've listened to the whole debate. Hats off to Ellie Reeves for getting this debate, hats off to the participants, especially Jenny Chapman's persistent and pointed remarks, which showed a depth of understanding lacking in many around her. Rory Stewart seems to be about half way through reading up his probation brief. He did that thing that ministers do of reciting his learning-to-date with trenchant authority but less underlying understanding. Plus a smattering of Tory-isms "back to basics", "innovation", tragically also trotting out a few Graylingisms "stubborn reoffending rates" "important role of charities". Oh, and TTG apparently crucial. He even remembered to appreciate the #hardworkingprobationstaff. 

Unbelievably depressing to hear him put up the "bedding in" defence and resolve to get the CRCs working properly as his solution. Revolving door of a conversation, Labour also seem to have fallen into an ideological mantra of private bad, public good, so solution is to take back the CRCs. The CRCs cannot go back, as where they came from doesn't exist any more. The situation in the CRCs is absolutely dire, but the situation in the NPS is pretty rubbish too. 

One point where there does seem to be some universal agreement: the third sector has been pushed out by the CRCs, to everyone's regret. Ministers on all sides pondering the difficulties of "scaling up" successful local third sector initiatives. Utterly misses the point! Seize the opportunities where they are, don't drown them with bureaucracy and centralised control. Preferably enable a strong unified probation service to work in partnership with local organisations at the scale they are operating in. First impressions, I will watch it again, especially Rory Stewart, first time I have heard him on topic.

*****
After a day down't'pit with nowt to eat, you've done well to sit through the debate as well - and you make good points. There are too many lies to wade through and unravel in this TR bollox including the "stubbornly high reoffending rates", the "thousands of unsupervised, unseen prisoners" on the loose, the ignored & unloved voluntary sector...

I was a volunteer in the 1980's 'embedded within' a probation team to provide support for prisoners' families; and I also worked for NACRO for a while (NB: they weren't in bed with Sodexo at that time). I then became a Probation Services Assistant working with a caseload of Money Payment Supervision Orders & non-statutory cases i.e. those who had either finished their Orders/Licences or were released without Licence but wanted assistance, e.g. housing. 

So, before the 20th century was over, I ticked every box that 21st century Grayling wanted ticked, yet still the spiteful wretched creature - and those who aided & abetted his twisted gut ideology - insisted on destroying a profession, many careers, and inflicted untold misery upon many more human lives.

*****
And you also illustrate the point Jenny Chapman was making: the profession needs to contain the opportunity for staff to start at the "low" end, and develop skills, confidence and maturity, some ending up at the "high" end. My caseload is now so densely high risk, and nearly all RSO's, that I occasionally catch myself thinking of those that raped adults as the "good guys". Draining.

*****
The lack of any progress with pay reform is a farce especially when the senior civil servant authorised to sort it seemingly agrees that the current pay scales could give rise to discrimination. The Tribunal may soon be losing patience with no change (Mr C Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice)? I can't understand why the Probation unions aren't pursuing an equal pay claim? But perhaps they are part of the problem?

*****
What the hell is a”NPS responsible officers”. Can these people not say PROBATION OFFICER!? PCC’s would be no different from private companies running probation.They're all about ‘revenue streams’ and all the separate parts will be hived off, buildings abandoned and we’ll have little back rooms in police stations where we’re slowly morphed into police cultures.

*****
I have some misgivings re PCCs as well, though they may not be quite as clueless as the MoJ. I think the idea is that MoJ and PCCs run the whole lot together. Imagine the chaos. Still, perhaps the PCC and the MoJ would entertain each other. That would take a bit of pressure off the workers, leave them in peace to get on with the task in hand. But where do the CRCs come into this? Will it mean not just one or two masters, but three? Re the back room in police station, this would be a possible scenario were it not for the attack on police funding which has seen a number of police stations closing down. Perhaps the operations will take place in the local shopping malls instead.

*****
I recently went to a training event. All the PSO's introduced themselves as Responsible Officers, all the PO's introduced themselves as Probation Officers.

*****
My understanding is that the term 'responsible officers' was introduced in an effort to eliminate the distinction between POs and PSOs in order to allow the gradual disappearance of the professional status of POs. This would, in turn, make it possible for CRCs to do the job on the cheap without having to contend with the arguments around 'PSOs can't do this. PSOs can't do that'. If we are all ROs, gradually, everyone will become a PSO and the wage bills decrease leaving more for the profiteers.

*****
All court orders since the introduction of the 2003 CJA referred to the “superving officer” and did not say PO or PSO. The 2014 Act refers to the “Responsible Officer”. Whoever manages the case (and in this day and age that can change very quickly) is the defacto RO. Whatever chair you occupy, be it PO/PSO, case manager or senior case manager is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.

Re PCC’s; I have in previous posts, advocated they are the best on offer of a pretty bad bunch, but I am from Liverpool and we are (except for Southport which is on the periphery of Merseyside), a Tory free zone and will be for generations to come. We would be happy to declare UDI if we could.....

*****
This issue about partnership working versus one agency being swallowed up by another: to have an impact in a partnership situation probation would need to be conscious of its own identity and promote this in such practical ways and with such distinctive outcomes that its value would be recognised and respected by its partners. But if probation staff have allowed themselves to be bullied and pushed about for years then that strong sense of identity and practice will not come to the fore and they will be swallowed up. In my experience Police officers have been known to be happy to work constructively with probation staff and because of interaction with probation, some have come to recognise the person behind the offence, the value of rehabilitation and the skill required in working together with your service user to that end. But for this to happen probation staff have to be sure about their own value and so do their managers.

*****
Partnership working is vital to probation and to rehabilitation as a whole. But I think the partnerships should be between agencies that have an equal status and their own particular identity. For example the creation of NOMS saw a probation service heavily influenced and shaped by a prison service approach to rehabilitation. I don't want to say that different agencies shouldn't adapt or adopt best practices from partner agencies, but that all agencies should not be independent in its own ideology and working practices. With that said, I'm unsure about devolving criminal justice issues to local PCCs. I think firstly that such a request is not founded in improving justice services, but more focused on downloading local funding.

Secondly, I worry about where it might lead. Some PCCs are involved in really progressive attitudes and approaches on drug use, yet other regions are imposing huge fines on the homeless for sleeping in doorways. Devolving justice matters to PCCs will surely create an Americanised model where the 'sheriff' of the region has the freedom to decide what way the law should be applied and what punishment any infringement should attract. Devolving justice services would create far too many regional differences.

*****
I've worked (and still do) with and alongside the Police for over 10 years. They are most definitely NOT the people/organisation we want running Probation! If not for the fact I'm on my phone and don't have my specs' I'd spell out in great detail as to why. However, nest feathering, nepotism, institutional racist and sexism and a inability to heed advice from those below them are only a few of the many, many, many reasons as to why I think this.

*****
I completely agree and I too have worked very closely with the police who at the drop off a hat want people recalled even when there's insufficient evidence to do so - they have a completely different ethos than Probation.

*****
Sorry but there are a lot of excellent Police Officer’s out there who are experts when it comes to crime. Really doesn’t sit right with me these kind of remarks. There are arguments as to why Police should not run Probation but let’s drop the claims of superiority. Clients wouldn’t share anything if they felt the Police could access the lot. The only country that has the Police run Probation is the USA and Probation is a pure enforcement service out there. Yes there are some police who are not very good but that is true of many jobs out there including probation.

*****
PCC’s and police culture taking over probation a huge mistake, probably worse than the years of servitude to prisons and NOMS. I once met a decent police officer in 1997 before I joined probation. Working in probation I’ve met a total of one decent police officer. Apart from these two, not saying all the rest are c*nts, racist, corrupt, arrogant know-it-all’s, but most are. I encourage PROBATION OFFICERS to amend letter formats and introduce themselves at meetings, parole hearings, to state this. We worked hard for this title, not Offender Manager, Responsible Officer, or Case Manager.

If our Jim had big balls he’d start a [campaign] for everyone to put their Probation Officer title and qualification in email signatures. Test this blogs influence and see how the MoJ likes that.

*****
Does anyone know what Probation stands for anymore? Seriously what is it? You better spell it out soon or your fossils will be the subject of a niche and limited history club. Who are your leaders? Collectively where are they leading you? Is Probation just a sign above the door? What does it mean? That others are imagining Probation here or there, making claim to it, seems to suggest you are truly adrift. Come on, shake yourselves out of your slumber, time is not your friend.

*****
The Police service operate on a top down command and control basis. Constable does exactly what the sergeant says, the sergeant does exactly what the inspector says and so on up the chain of command. There is no opportunity for rational discussion, challenge to a particular stance or even point out blatant sexism, homophobia, racism or other unsavoury traits. Anyone who "splits" on a fellow policeman had better beware - it just isn't done. Given this scenario it is impossible to see how any Probation staff could work within a police environment as the two are totally incompatible. The police say their job is to catch criminals and send them to prison, whereas Probation's job is to "mollycoddle" clients and do everything they can to keep them out of prison. Not the basis for any sort of marriage.

*****
Anyone who has ever had an OASys report done on them knows full well that as a tool for calculating risk it's a load of absolute cobblers. It's not helped by the fact that probation officers fail every single day to accurately record information about the client in their records as they are legally obligated to under the Data Protection Act 1998. They fail to check that the information 3rd parties give them is accurate as they are legally obligated to which skews what OASys spews out even further. A result is only as good as the information put into the assessment notwithstanding the effectiveness of the actual tool in the first place.

And as for actual risk, well considering every human on the planet is capable of murder in the right set of circumstances, it's actually impossible to predict the risk of anyone committing a crime. Some people you think will, won't and others who have but never been caught will continue to do so and those who have never committed an arrest worthy crime suddenly will. It all depends on what happens to that person on any given day and none of know when we get up in the morning what the day will bring.

*****
I was voluntarily involved in the genesis of OASys (I know!! but I thought a single assessment tool was a good idea in principle) & whilst it was a fascinating exercise to begin with I was variously horrified, dismayed & angered by the arrogance of the lead psychologist who had a very clear Home Office agenda within rigid parameters. I had a similar experience when being introduced to Thornton's RM2000 in that the lead clinician would not entertain any discussion of exceptions. In both cases my frustrations were subordinate to the tsunami of nausea generated by the fawning & fanboy/fangirl responses of colleagues; & management in particular.

Context - a single assessment tool being a good idea in principle as opposed to each probation area having their own homegrown version, which was problematic &/or confusing when cases were being transferred. Points made [above] are valid & were among the issues & concerns dismissed or ignored when they were raised with lead clinicians.

*****
“Risk management” justifies “enforcement” and is the biggest lie probation officers delude themselves in to believing! For the new breed PO’s (those that don’t know or don’t care what probation really is because it ceased having any meaningful purpose some years ago) “risk management” and “public protection” makes them feel purposeful and important.

*****
I have frequently asked the service users I worked with if they thought they were dangerous, what kind of dangers they posed, to whom, and what tends to trigger the behaviours which pose risks to others. Within a good working relationship those kinds of conversations beat 1000 oasys’es. I ask the same questions of myself. Driving is where I’m risky.