Prison/Probation Tensions

Bit late today due to a lie-in, but back to the day job, the following exchanges came in a couple of days ago and deserves some attention I think:- 

"The prison service was actually more helpful to my OH than probation have been since release. Probation have done absolutely nothing at all to rehabilitate."

That's strange because most people who work in Probation would see it the other way around. Prisons have primacy in most cases and are very good at shifting the risk onto probation as soon as possible. The ECSL has only increased their ability to talk down to probation in the community. These early releases are clearly not risk-informed and there is no rationale given and the prisons hide behind it using the dreaded Annex that community probation has to fill in whilst the clock is ticking until very short notice release.

Resettlement teams, which are costed and funded, are next to useless but remain in the prison for giggles and show. I've had a prison tell me they don't resettle high risk offenders but house them, which makes no sense. They don't alert probation to changes of release dates and ignore pleas from probation to have offenders undertake offence-focused work.

This offender has had a unique experience if prisons helped him more than probation. Prisons do the bare minimum and then shove the risk onto probation and that's been made much easier because there's been no time to undertake offence-focused work and resettlement (they have access to the internet- so no excuses about local this or that) before countdown to yet another early release which has been a pick-n-mix of all kinds of risk levels, despite the public being told 'no high risk ECSL'.

Why can't they just concentrate on the low and medium risk cases; be more risk-informed when these cases are chosen; be accountable in the form of a rationale; not hide behind an Annex which is the obligation of probation to deal with, and just be a bit more team orientated instead of thinking they're the kings of the castle and we're the dirty rascals.

Prisons need to do and be much better. Probation is damaged and broken but as we get to little to no funding and it's harder to manage offenders in the community, frankly on what we get, which are crumbs, we perform miracles. Perhaps the £46K a year they save on shoving/imposing ECSL cases onto probation can be used to sort out some of the issues in probation. Just a thought. Oh, that's passed. Back to reality.

Taking a Risk

I've been pondering how to follow up the chord that's been struck with the sublime enquiry:-

How exactly does anyone "manage" someone else's offending behaviour?

and it sent me searching the archive very early this morning and a reflective piece about risk I wrote over 10 years ago and triggered by another blogger writing on the subject of 'what makes a good probation officer?' In turn it had triggered some caustic responses from readers of Inside Time. Now the bad news is that the link to the latter is no longer available, but the good news is that I chose to include one of the most interesting in my blogpost of 24th August 2012. The other good news is that the original piece is still available on the Russell Webster website.

As is often the case, does any of this hold true today, indeed did it ever?   

He Has a Point

I hope the author of the following comment to Zoe Stafford's piece in Inside Time will not mind me quoting it in full because I think it very neatly sums up what many clients feel about their probation officer. It makes for uncomfortable reading, but in my view it's no good trying to pretend otherwise and the points raised need addressing.

"Those who say that they have a good probation officer are either gullible, naive or living in cloud cuckoo land. Yes of course they always welcome you when you report. 'how are you today?' 'how's things?' and so forth like they care. All they care about is that you are not offending as that means a recall if you are on licence and you do not even have to offend to be recalled. Never tell them that you have a problem, lost your job, lost your flat etc as that becomes risk. Report on time, smile and tell them everything is fine even if it's not. Never ever trust a probation officer for they have all the options open to them, recall, recommending in their reports that you should receive a custodial sentence and steering you to banal and irrelevant offending behaviour courses which are as useless as they are. Believe me they are the biggest con merchants going but so many ex-offenders fall for it. You do so at your peril."

What makes a 'good' probation officer is a fascinating question and of course the answer will depend to a great extent on who you ask and what side of the desk they sit. Top of my list if I were pushed to come up with a response would be the ability to take appropriate risks.

In my experience a good PO has got to continually weigh up what risks to take with a case in order to achieve the long-term aim of public benefit that flows from crime reduction. Admittedly this willingness and scope to take risks has got much harder over the years with crap like OASys, an increasingly proscriptive culture and management scared witless by what might appear in the press. But deep down all PO's worth their salt know that we are in the risk business and risks have to be taken sometimes in order to achieve progress. Life without some risk is no life at all.

Risk-taking can take many forms such as deciding to give a guy a chance, even when the track record has not been good and he's not responded to previous interventions. It's about the officer wanting to take a risk and then putting an argument to the court that's convincing. Of course this is a risk in itself as there is always the possibility of ridicule from the court, from colleagues or management even. There's the risk that if the court goes along with a positive outcome it will all go pear-shaped at any point. On the other hand the fact that the client knows you've taken a risk and helped give them a chance should help build a good working relationship.

There are always risks associated with exercising judgement. A good PO in my view must decide what it is appropriate to record or pass on to management. Sometimes what is heard in the interview room might be more appropriate to keep between officer and client. The information can form the basis of constructive work at a later date and need not require immediate action. Just to be clear, I'm not referring to child protection issues or discussion of unreported criminal activity, but for example I have not always passed on threats to myself if I felt they were not meant or likely to be carried out.

Sometimes unwise things are said at moments of great stress and an apology at a later date has much more worth than the alternative of adding yet more trouble to an already desperate situation. It should be self-evident that a client is hardly going to be open and honest during supervision sessions if everything they tell you either results in lectures or draconian responses. A degree of trust has to be established if the magic of probation is to have any chance of working.

Good officers always consider what is best for their client and society and act accordingly. Like the comment author, I share the irritation surrounding referrals to courses as a matter of routine and only do so if I feel it appropriate. Shamefully there was a period some years ago when management harassed us as a result of targets introduced by NOMS and in order to justify the hugely expensive investment in accredited programmes. No longer as fashionable thank goodness and with targets a thing of the past, such courses are now only reserved for those who really need them.

Essentially, being a PO is not about winning a popularity contest, it's about doing a useful job for society and a popular officer might not necessarily be a 'good' officer.

--oo00oo--

The post generated the following response at the time:-

I think it is important to acknowledge also that the average caseload of a Probation Officer nowadays is increasingly chock full of higher risk people than it was in my day (1994-2000). I had my share of sex offenders and dv cases but they were about 30-40% of my caseload. Most POs have about 80-90% high risk cases. I could not recall people in my day; the option was unavailable. The nature of the relationship between offender and PO is very different nowadays. A 'good' PO to an SPO, may not be a 'good' PO to a magistrate or a CEO or a member of the public or an offender. I think, by the very nature of their role, POs cannot ever please everybody and are inevitably going to be criticised. One of the core skills (?) is the development of a thick skin.

Blowing The Whistle

I'm not aware we've ever discussed 'whistleblowing' on here and I have to confess I know almost nothing about the process. Of course the Ch4News scoop last week by a 'whistleblower' regarding pressure being applied by mangers to alter risk assessments for resource reasons has now brought the issue to the fore. 

Here is the MoJ guidance document, but I'm not at all sure it helps a great deal and indeed even if it covers the risk 'manipulation' issue? What about allegations I've heard from time to time that electronic records have been known to be 'doctored' during various investigation processes such as SFO's? 

It's noteworthy that 'bullying' is not covered and this from the Mirror recently reminds us that the staff survey found the MoJ had a higher incidence at 11% than the average of 7%. 

Guidance

Whistleblowing advice questions for civil servants

1. What is Whistleblowing?

‘Blowing the whistle’ occurs when a person raises a concern about past, present or imminent wrongdoing, or an attempt to cover up wrongdoing, in an organisation or a body of people. The information that they disclose should be in the public interest, i.e. the issue must affect others, for example the organisation, work colleagues or the general public. Further information on whistleblowing can be found on the GOV.Uk site See the Whistleblowing intranet page.

2. What is the Civil Service Code?

The Civil Service Code (the Code) forms part of the terms and conditions of employment for all civil servants and sets out their duties and responsibilities. Civil servants are expected to carry out their role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its four core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality. The Code can be accessed online on the GOV.UK website (see the external sites on the whistleblowing intranet pages). Links to the relevant codes for Welsh and Scottish civil servants can be found on the CS Commission website.

3. What can I raise under the Whistleblowing Procedure?

If you are asked to do something which conflicts with the values in the Code, or are aware that another civil servant is acting in conflict with the values, you should raise a concern as soon as possible, using this procedure. The whistleblowing procedure does not cover HR related issues which can be raised using existing departmental policies.

Below is a list of examples of concerns which fall under the Code:

• misuse of official position, for example by using information acquired in the course of one’s official duties to further one’s private interests or those of others
• deceiving or knowingly misleading Ministers, Parliament, or others
• being influenced by improper pressure from others or the prospect of personal gain
• ignoring inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions
• frustrating the implementation of policies once decisions are taken by declining to take, or abstaining from, actions which flow from those decisions
• acting in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular individuals or interests
• acting in a way that is determined by partly political considerations, or use official resources for party political purposes
• allowing one’s personal political views to determine any advice you give or your actions

You may find that your concern relates to general wrongdoing and does not fall under the Code but would be considered under the whistleblowing procedure, for example:

A threat to National Security:

• failure to follow security vetting procedure
• falsifying incident reports

Failure to comply with legal policy obligations:

• not protecting personal data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998, Gender Recognition Act 2004, Health and Safety regulations or any other relevant legislation.

Danger to the environment:

• improper disposal of hazardous materials
• failure to put in place proportionate controls to manage environmental risks that could cause harm to individual(s) or the environment

The above lists are not exhaustive. Nominated Officers can provide further advice if you are unsure whether your concern is covered by the whistleblowing policy. It is important that any concerns you may have, are raised as soon as possible.

4. What is the Civil Service Commission and what type of concern can I raise with them?

The Civil Service Commission (the Commission) have been helping to uphold the standards of the Civil Service since their original appointment in 1854. The current Commission was established as an executive Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB) under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Commissioners are appointed by the Crown following open competition. The Commission and its Commissioners are therefore independent of the Civil Service.

The Commission has powers under the Act to hear and decide on complaints raised by civil servants under the Code specifically. It does not hear complaints on issues outside of the Code, for example personnel grievances. The code can be accessed via the link on the whistleblowing intranet pages.

5. How can I contact the Commission?

Further information on how to raise a concern with the Commission is available from:

Civil Service Commission
G/8 1 Horse Guards Road
London SW1A 2HQ

E-mail : info@csc.gov.uk Tel: 020 7271 0831

6. Can I take my concern straight to the Commission?

You may take a concern direct to the Commission, however, in most instances the Commission will expect you to have raised the concern within your own department first. If you raise a concern directly with the Commission, without the issue being raised within the department the Commission will ask why it was not appropriate to raise the matter internally first. The Commission they will inform you directly about whether they are prepared to investigate the concern. Information on raising a concern directly with Civil Service Commission can be found on their website (see the whistleblowing contact list).

7. What is not covered by the Whistleblowing Procedure?

Issues around your treatment as a member of staff or personal complaints about your employment, for example: complaints about your terms and conditions; promotion or selection procedure are not covered by the whistleblowing procedure. Any other complaints connected to your working conditions, including harassment, bullying and discrimination are also not covered by the whistleblowing procedure. These would normally be dealt with by your line manager through day-to-day management action, or through appropriate departmental procedures.

8. What is the difference between whistleblowing and a personal grievance?

Concerns raised under the whistleblowing policy should address wider issues that concern your department, colleagues or public in general, rather than personal complaints that you may raise under other policies. For civil servants, they will usually relate to the Civil Service values, as outlined in the Code.

Personal grievances and complaints, including complaints of bullying, harassment and discrimination will not be accepted under the whistleblowing policy and should be raised under the department’s appropriate policy.

9. Is a ‘crisis of conscience’ complaint the same as blowing the whistle?

A ‘crisis of conscience’ may occur when you are asked to do work which conflicts with your faith or personal beliefs. This is not the same as whistleblowing where there is suspicion of wrongdoing, or a breach of the values in the Code, by the department. If you have a crisis of conscience you should discuss this with your line manager in the first instance.

10. Do I need to formally raise every concern under the Whistleblowing Procedure?

No. You and your line manager should engage in regular, open discussion about your work and working environment. If something is on your mind, you may wish to discuss this informally with your line manager before raising more formally under the whistleblowing procedure.

11. I don’t have any proof of my concern yet. What should I do?

You do not need to wait for proof when reporting a concern. When raising a concern with your line manager or Nominated Officer, you only need to have a reasonable belief that wrongdoing has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur. It is not for you to investigate or prove that your concerns are justified, as that is the responsibility of the department.

12. Why should I follow the Whistleblowing Procedure?

The whistleblowing policy and procedure have been designed to:

• offer you protection when raising a concern that is accepted under the policy
• ensure that your concerns are addressed and resolved at the right level and as quickly and effectively possible

13. What are the benefits of raising Whistleblowing concerns?

A positive whistleblowing culture has numerous advantages. For example, it can:

• encourage an open culture where employees feel confident that concerns can be raised and dealt with quickly and that they will be protected for doing so
• detect and deter wrongdoing
• provide managers with the information they need to make decisions and control risk
• save lives, the environment, property, jobs, money and both personal and organisational reputations
• reduce the chance of anonymous or malicious leaks (including to the media)
• reduce the chance of legal claims against the organisation

14. Will there be repercussions if I blow the whistle?

The department’s whistleblowing procedure, if correctly followed, will afford you protection from any detrimental treatment or victimisation on the grounds of raising your concern. See question 29 regarding the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA).

15. What would happen if an employee raise malicious, vexatious or knowingly untrue concerns?

If an employee raises malicious or vexatious concerns other than in the public interest or raises knowingly untrue concerns in order to harm colleagues or their department, they will face disciplinary action. This could result in dismissal, unless, they can demonstrate a reasonable belief that the concern was both true and in the public interest.

16. What happens if an employee is treated badly by a co-worker because they raised a concern?

It is the responsibility of the employer to stop any bad treatment and take reasonable steps to prevent any further issues arising. If an employee feels they are being treated badly because they have raised a concern, they should report this to their line manager or someone else in their line management chain, or they should seek advice from a Nominated Officer.

Where an employee has been victimised for raising a concern, the department will take appropriate action against those responsible, in line with the Disciplinary Policy and Procedures.

17. I am a non-civil servant seconded into the Civil Service. What procedure should I use?

If you are seconded into the Civil Service, you are a civil servant for the duration of your secondment. You will therefore be subject to the Civil Service Code and Civil Service Management Code and should use the Whistleblowing Procedure for Civil Servants. You will have access to the Civil Service Commission.

18. I am a civil servant who has been seconded out of the Civil Service and I want to raise a concern about a departmental matter, what procedure should I use?

If you are a civil servant seconded out of the Civil Service, you retain your status as a civil servant. This means you will continue to be bound by your Civil Service terms and conditions, the Civil Service Code and the Civil Service Management Code. If your concern relates to the actions of another civil servant, you may use the Whistleblowing and Raising a Concern Procedure and will have access to the Civil Service Commission. If your concern relates to matters within the non-Civil Service organisation you have been seconded to, you should use the organisation’s own whistleblowing policy and the matter cannot be brought to the Civil Service Commission (this may depend on the terms of the particular secondment.)

19. I am a civil servant on loan to another department and I want to raise a concern. What procedure should I use?

As a civil servant you are bound by the provisions applicable to all civil servants, including the Code and the Civil Service Management Code. You should therefore, depending on the terms of your loan, either use the whistleblowing procedure of your parent department or the department you are seconded to. You will have access to the Civil Service Commission.

20. I am a service provider i.e. contractor, working within a government department and I want to raise a concern, What procedure should I use?

As you are not a civil servant you are not subject to the Civil Service Management Code, nor the Code. However, service providers will normally be dealt with under the procedure of their host department and so the principles of the whistleblowing procedure for employees will still apply and you should follow this to raise a concern. As a non-civil servant, you will not be able to raise a concern with the Civil Service Commission.

21. I am an employee working for a non-Crown non-departmental public body (NDPB) and I want to raise a concern. What procedure should I use?

As you are not a civil servant, you are not subject to the Civil Service Management Code, nor the Code. Please refer to the Whistleblowing Procedure for Employees of a NDPB.

22. Where can I go for support during this process?

We recognise that you may experience anxiety when raising or considering whether to raise a concern. There are various channels of support available to you throughout the process:

• the Integrity Line: 0800 917 6877 Monday to Friday
• your line manager, or another locally based manager and a Nominated Officer can advise you on available support. More information can be found in the contact list on the whistleblowing intranet l pages.
• you can contact the MOJ employee assistance programme, HELP: 0800 019 8988. They may provide counselling to whistleblowers.
• trade union members can seek advice from their representatives. DTUS contact details can be found in the contact list on the whistleblowing intranet pages.
• The department may also provide legal representation or cover legal costs if you are involved in legal proceedings as a result of blowing the whistle, this only applies in very particular circumstances as outlined in Section 12.2 of the Civil Service Management Code. This will be decided on a case by case basis. A link to the management code can be found on the whistleblowing pages on the intranet.
• The ACAS Helpline 0300 123 1100 provides free and impartial advice for employees on a range of issues, including whistleblowing in the workplace
• Public Concern At Work is a whistleblowing charity which advises individuals on whistleblowing matters at work. The website can be accessed via the intranet pages.

Please note however that these sources of support (excl. line managers and Nominated Officers) are not themselves bodies to whom you can raise your concern. They can only provide help and advice and you should not divulge details of the matter itself to them.

23. What is a Nominated Officer and how might I contact them?

Nominated Officers are employees, Band B/SEO and above, who can offer impartial support and advice, outside of the management chain, to those who have potential whistleblowing concerns.

They are able to provide advice on:

• the Civil Service Code
• whether your concern falls under the whistleblowing policy
• the appropriate channels available for you to raise your concerns
• the alternative channels to follow where your concern falls outside of the Whistleblowing and Raising a Concern Policy
• whether the Permanent Secretary needs to be consulted / informed
• what the next steps should be.

Contact details for Nominated Officers can be found in the contact list on the whistleblowing intranet page.

24. Will my identity remain confidential?

The best way to raise a concern is to do so openly, as this makes it easier for the department to investigate and provide feedback. You can however request that the department keeps your identity confidential and they will respect this request as far as possible. If requested, your identity will be restricted to a ‘need to know basis’. However, a situation may arise where it is not possible to resolve the concern and guarantee confidentiality (for example, in matters of criminal law). If this is the case, the department will advise you of this before proceeding.

25. Can I raise a concern anonymously?

If you raise your concern openly, this makes it easier for the department to investigate your concern and provide feedback. You may choose to raise concerns anonymously, i.e. without providing your name at all. However, the investigation itself may serve to reveal the source of information. Employees are therefore encouraged, where possible, to put their names to concerns raised, but raising a concern anonymously is preferred to silence about potential serious wrongdoing.

26. Will I be able to find out the outcome of the investigation?

Whilst the department will try to keep you informed of progress, and where possible provide you with an update within 28 days. You will be advised when the matter has been concluded. However it cannot be guaranteed that you will be given all the details of the investigation and the final outcome will be disclosed. Security and confidentiality must be maintained for all parties.

27. I am not happy with the outcome of the investigation, what now?

If you have raised the concern with your line manager, someone else in your management chain or a Nominated Officer in accordance with the whistleblowing procedure, and you do not think that you have received a satisfactory outcome, you may raise your concern with the Permanent Secretary and from here, the independent Civil Service Commission. Although the Department / Commission cannot guarantee that the outcome would be as you may wish, it will seek to handle the matter fairly and correctly.

28. Can I go straight to my Permanent Secretary with a concern?

You may raise a concern directly with the Permanent Secretary if you feel your concern is of such a serious nature that you would be justified in doing so. If you are unable to raise the concern with your manager or a senior manager then you should consider raising your concern with a Nominated Officer if possible.

29. What is PIDA and how does it link with the department’s Whistleblowing Procedure?

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) is more commonly known as ‘whistleblowing legislation’ and forms part of employment legislation. The department’s whistleblowing procedure primarily focuses on breaches of the Civil Service Code. However in some cases, PIDA legislation may also be relevant. PIDA serves to protect ‘workers’ who make a ‘qualifying disclosure’ in one of the permissible ways set out in the Act. Having made a ‘protected disclosure’ they are entitled to the protection set out in the Act.

By law, the employer has a duty to protect that worker from suffering any detriment as a result of making a protected disclosure. Any dismissal of an employee as a result of the disclosure would be automatically unfair. Whilst not permitted under the Whistleblowing and Raising a Concern Policy, disclosures to certain regulatory bodies, known as ‘prescribed persons’ can be permitted by PIDA in certain circumstances. See GOV.UK for information on prescribed persons.

In order to be protected, an employee will need to follow the procedure set out in the Act. If you wish to raise a concern in this way, it is advisable to seek legal advice.

Look Where 'tick box' Got Us

Thanks go to the reader for reminding us of this from the Guardian 10th June 2009 and the aftermath of the notorious Sonnex case. Of course it's from the days when probation had autonomy and a distinct voice:-

Is the probation service in crisis?

In the wake of the Dano Sonnex case, we get insider views from four senior figures within the beleagured probation service

Diana Fulbrook, chief officer, Wiltshire probation area and public protection lead, Probation Chiefs Association

I think London is a special case simply because of the size and scale of the area. We manage some very difficult and dangerous people, so at any point in time something can go wrong – occasionally because we didn't do our job properly, but more often because, despite what we do, offenders choose to act in that way. You cannot eliminate risk but you can contribute to managing and controlling it in many cases.

Resources are a key issue. The challenge for chief officers is to make the right decisions to manage those resources to best effect. There are severe financial pressures on the service, which means we are unable to recruit as many people as we would like. Retention is not so much of a problem in my area but it is in others. Morale can be pretty low among staff because of uncertainty and negative public opinion, and a case like this doesn't help.

The death of Baby P has exacerbated the recruitment and retention issues for social workers, and there's a danger that cases such as the Sonnex case could make this a real issue for the probation service too.

Unlike prisons, we can't close the doors to cases. We have to take whatever the courts give us, and managing demands is a real challenge.

We are very successful at managing high-risk offences. The majority of serious reoffending comes from those who are medium risk, so it is absolutely essential we get better at assessing and managing this.

Resources follow risk, so everything depends on getting that first assessment right. Our resources dictate that we therefore concentrate more on the most risky group of people. That means there will be some in the medium group of offenders who have got the potential to commit very serious offences. It comes down to being able to spot this early enough to move them into a higher risk category and manage them accordingly. Sometimes this is easy to spot but at other times it is not.

If you want to have fewer people in prison, you do need to grow the capacity of the probation service longer term to manage people effectively in the community, and you need the public to have confidence in our ability to do this.

Our fear as chief officers is that cases like this one undermine that confidence, and that without longer-term committed funding and growth, the probation service will be increasingly unable to deliver the level of public protection required.

Dino Peros, national vice-chair of Napo (the trade union and professional association for family court and probation staff), Devon and Cornwall probation area

People employed in the public sector feel really angry, extremely betrayed and let down by the Labour government, and what will likely be seen as failing criminal justice policy.

We are looking at 25% overall budget cuts in the south-west. Our projected cuts are £1m this financial year, £1.5m next and a further £1m by April 2011. These cuts will potentially create more cases like Sonnex. It is an unacceptable risk to take.

Caseloads in Devon and Cornwall are managed through a workload weighting system. If an officer has too much work, their line manager will sign off on what work can be left or taken away from the practitioner.

Cases are often very complex and officers need proper time to deal with the unique circumstances of each one. No two people are the same and all have different assessed needs. What is obvious is that if you decrease resources, and that means staffing, then inevitably it will increase the workload.

By doing that, you compound the problems and increase the risk. The public won't take long to work out that stretched staff, lack of resources and an over-burdened, target-driven culture is not tough on crime.

There is nothing consoling in the words we hear too often these days that we will draw from lessons learned. What will it really take for politicians to stop playing roulette with people's lives? The system failed.

Steve Collett, vice-chair, Probation Chiefs Association, and chief officer, Cheshire probation area

The difference between London Probation and the other 41 areas in England and Wales is the scale. It is 10 times the size of my area in Cheshire. London's budget is £150m, Cheshire's £15m, yet Cheshire is a medium-sized area. London has about 20% of the total workload of the National Probation Service, ie 40,000 cases out of the 200,000 we supervise.

London Probation is facing a number of similar issues to other public sector agencies in the capital that set it apart from most other areas:

1) An increasingly diverse population.

2) A more transient population: an offender without a fixed address who commits a further offence, for example, is much more difficult to track down.

3) Recruiting staff is much more difficult.

4) It is subject to far greater scrutiny because it commands the greatest proportion of resources and is much closer to the seat of power, Westminster, and the Ministry of Justice.

Caseloads are only one part of the job. Probation officers also write court reports and conduct prison visits. In Cheshire, probation officers typically have 40-60 cases comprising higher-risk offenders among their total caseload. It's relatively easy in Cheshire to take contingency action to make sure workloads are not excessive.

The problem for probation is that we have no control over the inflow of work. This is largely determined by the courts and the sentences handed down. For example, community payback is a very popular sentence with magistrates and judges in low-level offences, where before they might have historically handed out fines. This means we have to divert resources, which could have been spent on medium-risk offenders.

We have been very successful at reducing reoffending. Some 59% of those sent to prison for less than a year will be reconvicted within 12 months of their release as compared with a reconviction rate of 38% for those given community orders.

When things have gone wrong, this is usually due to poor risk assessment and risk management decisions, but in circumstances and an environment that may not be entirely supportive. Typically, it will be the result of a combination of factors that may include a lack of support and good line management, inefficient resources or IT systems.

Geoff Dobson, a former chief probation officer and deputy director of the Prison Reform Trust

Many questions have been raised in the media about pressures on probation staff, and the performance of police and probation in dealing with recalls to prison. At a time when we are locking up more and more children and young people, this examination of the time Dano Sonnex spent in custody from the age of 17 raises a number of concerns about the effectiveness of the young offender estate such as: why was a highly disturbed young man transferred frequently within the young offender estate, preventing continuity of care and attention; what was the impact of repeated periods of separation; and how did he manage to access drugs so readily throughout the early years of his custodial sentence?

As we seek to learn lessons from this horrendous and, thankfully, unusual case, it is important that we do not overlook the years that Dano Sonnex had already spent in our custodial system.

--oo00oo--

Lets contrast the above with something contributed on here from yesterday:-

Just sent this to NAPO. I don’t expect anything back, but enjoyed the vent.

I wanted to write to you, my union, to express my utter frustration, anger and huge regret at the state of the probation service and the terrible impact on victims of the inevitable SFOs that are starting to come to the public’s attention.

May I ask what is your strategy for moving forward to really engage employers to move to improve the experience of operational staff and stop the misery?

From my perspective the response by the MOJ to recent events looks like “same old”. In my 30 years of working in the service I fear what is coming down the line is another political sticking plaster on a weeping wound. “If we make them look over here, no one will notice that nothing has actually changed” more victims and more frontline careers in tatters.

I am begging the Union to push back on any proposed “MOJ solutions” that equate to bolt ons in the maelstrom of probation data bases. There are no answers there to the problems we are facing.

History tells us that is where they will go hunting. It therefore raises the question do we really need additions to ever lengthening drop down lists and yet more questions in OASys? All that appears to do is spew out stats and keep operational staff on the task of recording, not necessarily doing. The employers actually need to interrogate data bases and recording tools. Strip out time wasting tasks, endless inputting and inputting.

We need time for one to one contact with those we supervise and meaningful multi agency working in the local area and the communities we live and work. Activities that actually aid monitoring, control and skilling up offenders.

If yet again, operational staff are instructed to do more IT tasks I would encourage NAPO to tell it’s members not to engage. Instead ask the employer what their contingency plan is as the main plan could well fail.

Also with spending cuts coming down the line again, perhaps NAPO could encourage the service to consider moving “experienced” seconded staff back into operational posts for a time to help stabilise the relentless failings of the service? Invest in the front line, start getting the basics right again and stop the ridiculousness of the facade that all is going so well we can afford to have significant numbers of qualified staff seconded into non operational roles.

--oo00oo--

The Sonnex case examined in Centre for Crime and Justice Studies:-

The conveyor belt of criminal justice: the Sonnex case, risk, and de-skilling in probation

Wendy Fitzgibbon explores recent high profile probation cases

The murder of two French students last year by Dano Sonnex is the latest of several recent cases involving murder committed by an individual on parole licence for previous violent offending. Some of the key issues have already been given a public airing: resource pressures in probation, and the failure of multi-agency and risk assessment procedures.

Coming so soon after the high profile ‘Baby P’ case in Haringey, the Sonnex case has, despite the differences (a social services child protection issue, where none of the adults concerned were on parole), inevitably reinforced a popular image of institutional failure. As with Baby P, the high profile ministerial response forced the resignation of senior managers. Justice Secretary Jack Straw claimed probation was not using its resources effectively and threatened David Scott, Chief Officer for the London Probation Area with a ‘performance capability review’ (Straw, 2009). Scott resigned and hit back accusing Straw of hiding behind lack of clarity about what was an acceptable workload for individual probation officers.

The London Borough of Lewisham where Sonnex was supervised was found to be in ‘meltdown’ and severely lacking in resources. Sonnex was supervised by a probation officer who was inexperienced, and only qualified for nine-months, with a caseload of over 127.Ten years ago the caseload for such an officer would have been around 30-35. Moreover only one out of the 22 probation officers in Lewisham had more than two years experience. The official inquiry reports into the Sonnex case noted high sickness rates due to stress and anxiety and missing risk assessments in 650 out of the 2,500 cases supervised by the Lewisham office.

There was confusion over the risk of harm levels regarding Sonnex. He was placed as a tier three (i.e. medium) risk when on probation supervision. This assessment should in hindsight have placed him at a higher level of risk as some other databases (OASys – Offender Assessment System) consistently assessed his behaviour as a high risk. This had implications for resource allocation and the progress of the Multi-Agency Public Protection Panel (MAPPA) referral. This panel is made up of interested agencies (probation, social services, police, mental health services) who meet to discuss and manage cases referred to them on the basis of assessment of high risk of harm to others. Although referred to MAPPA this case was not followed up due to administrative errors and the level of assessed risk (medium) recorded. Neither were other incidents, which should have changed Sonnex’s risk level, notably his attack on a pregnant woman and her partner to extort money. These were not included in the risk evaluation due to the charges being dropped but, as it later transpired, this was due to victim intimidation. Finally, when the order did go out for a recall to prison, the police delayed acting on it and a police officer has been disciplined for this.

But if the discussion remains at the level of case loads and interagency risk assessments, important as these issues are, more systemic problems indicative of a more general malaise in the probation service will remain unexamined. By far the most important of these is the issue of deskilling of probation officers combined with an automated ‘tick box’ approach to risk assessment.

Sonnex was in fact in many ways a model client – his attendance at supervision meetings was punctual; he was well-turned out and cooperative. He ticked all the boxes. Problems might have been identified earlier if he had been more closely scrutinised by a more experienced probation officer. But the combined effect of resource constraints and the new division of labour in the probation service, has led to a concentration of skilled and experienced probation officers on very high risk cases while low or medium risk offenders (80 per cent of all offenders) are (according to the goals elaborated in Home Office circular PC08/2007) to be supervised by the newer grade of semi-skilled Probation Service Officers (PSOs).

This allocation of cases on the basis of tick-box risk assessments continues despite research by Ansbro (2006) and Craissati and Sindall (2009) showing that low/medium risk offenders can go on to commit serious further offences and that risk is a dynamic evolving phenomena. The predominance of ‘tick-box’ risk assessment tools such as OASys sustains management belief that risk assessment and the management of the majority of offenders on probation can be effectively undertaken by deskilled operatives.

Robinson and Burnett (2007) found that older skilled staff felt marginalised: like ‘dinosaurs’. They were trained to deal with the offender as a whole person in contrast to the correctional model in which the new recruits to probation are trained. Experienced, long-serving staff felt alienated from their role and distanced from the values of the new management bureaucracy.

This anxiety and stress is compounded by the concentration of work with high risk offenders within the more qualified staff group. This was also shown, in a small research study I recently undertook, (Fitzgibbon, 2009 forthcoming) to have a detrimental effect on a group of highly qualified probation officers. Asked to identify the most difficult part of working in a public protection team they all indicated the intensity of workload and pressure of scrutiny. The National Probation Audit in 2006 found that a third of sickness in the probation service was due to stress and anxiety. Oldfield and Grimshaw (2008) found that main grade staff on average worked five hours extra per week to get work finished! A clear example of this practice was the fact that the overworked probation officer supervising Sonnex had to go into the office out of hours to complete the recall papers in time, despite, ironically, the police failing to arrest Sonnex when the papers were submitted.

Oldfield and Grimshaw (2008) showed that a fall of 9 per cent in qualified staff in probation over a five-year period was accompanied by a 35 per cent rise in workload. They also found that there had been a 77 per cent increase in the recruitment of unqualified staff, and a parallel 70 per cent increase in management grades during this period.

Qualified staff feel that their ‘professional territory’ has been encroached upon by unqualified staff. They were overwhelmed by ‘change fatigue’ regarding the pace and number of changes their role as a probation officer has been subjected to (Robinson and Burnett, 2007).This has led to rapid staff turnover. Lewisham is an example of this with their high proportion of inexperienced staff.

The lack of morale and professional identity is heightened by confusion regarding the future of probation training and the probation service in general. The drawing up of the proposed new probation training qualification has been a complex and lengthy process, which many fear will either lead to a shortening of the training or a reduction of the academic content or both. Already Treadwell (2006) feels the ‘core curriculum’ is too narrow and not academically focused enough.

Justice minister Claire Ward in July 2009 said the rate of serious further offence convictions was low at 0.3 per cent last year, and paid tribute to frontline officers. She said this was due to ‘hard work and dedication of probation officers, who deal on the frontline with some of the most dangerous and unpredictable people in our society’ (Ward, 2009).This was following the publication of official figures showing that criminals on probation committed more than 1,000 serious crimes over the last two years, including nearly one murder a week in England and Wales.

The vast majority of serious further offences are committed by offenders given a community order by the court having been convicted of less serious offences. In most cases, nothing in their previous offending histories has indicated that they would be capable of such serious offences. (my italics). (Ward, 2009)

This final statement would again support the fact that having unqualified or inexperienced officers supervising offenders of medium to low risk is inadequate and fails to recognise research and statistical findings.

When I conducted interviews with newly qualified probation officers in 2008 I found them to be more concerned with managerial processes, targets, and tasks than with the offender or their relationship with the offender. Again this could indicate distancing of practitioners from their offenders, allowing the possibility of not accurately reading or following up worrying risky behaviour or seeing risk in a contextualized way.

More cases like Sonnex may just be waiting to happen.

Wendy Fitzgibbon

Plight of the Long-term Prisoner

Right from the beginning of my career in the Probation Service and working in a Field Team, meant that a significant proportion of the the caseload were serving custodial sentences and a few were serving life. Regular contact through visits and letter was quite normal right from first remand or sentence, as was being part of the sentence planning process. I've always felt it was a vital part of the job and good practice for all prisoners serving 12 months or more to have community contact maintained and actively supported by a field PO.

It doesn't surprise me at all that a recent report from the Prison Reform Trust on the plight of long-term prisoners paints an extremely bleak picture and despite some optimism for OMiC, I can't help but feel this is a situation created largely by the absence of former practice.    

Prison system failing to prepare long term prisoners for release

Prisoners serving long sentences are spending years in jail unsure about what they can do to prepare—and ultimately demonstrate their readiness—for release, a new report by the Prison Reform Trust reveals.

Making Progress?, is the first consultation report of the Prison Reform Trust’s Building Futures programme. It follows collaboration with people from around 30 prisons, who have all served—or will serve—a continuous period of at least ten years in custody.

The consultation found that prisoners were confused and disillusioned by the apparently simple proposition that they are required to reduce ‘risk’. Whilst talk of risk pervades prison life and affects many aspects of prisoners’ experiences, this catch-all term masks important details—risk of what, from what, to whom, in what circumstances?

Demonstrating reduced risk is of particular importance to those whose release ultimately depends upon approval by the Parole Board—and if recent proposals become law—the Secretary of State for Justice.

The report suggests that this confusion stems from a mismatch between what prisons appear to expect from prisoners—broadly, compliance with the rules—and what those in probation and the Parole Board are looking for prisoners to demonstrate to secure their own development and eventual release.

Participants told us that this was leading to them spending years of “nothing time” in prison. Years, often in the middle part of their sentence, where the sentence felt purposeless and stagnant.

“Progress? Which part? Serving a life sentence longer than I have lived—is that normal? It felt as if the prison estate did not even know what to do with us. The reality is lifers at the beginning of our sentences were just warehoused like livestock…sadly many lifers, myself included, saw progression as somewhat of a myth” A life sentenced prisoner, quoted in the report

Another highlighted that their sentence length was acting as a barrier to progression:

“Offending behaviour programmes are prioritised by earliest release date. Which means I have little to no prospect of progressing through my sentence plan or the prison system.”

For others it was their age:

“A minority (but still a substantial number) of long-term prisoners are aware that they are unlikely to live until the end of their sentence. Being rehabilitated to re-enter society is for them (myself included) a false goal.”

The report recommends that HM Prison and Probation Service should develop a long-term prisoner policy framework. It should equip staff working with long-term prisoners to assess risk; communicate this effectively with prisoners and other criminal justice professionals; and give explicit guidance and direction on what kinds of behaviour may demonstrate lowered and elevated risk in future assessments.

It also recommends earlier involvement with the Parole Board in reviewing progress. This would allow any potential roadblocks to release to be identified and a plan to be developed which outlines the steps prisoners can take. With so many years in custody to work with, the system should be aiming for far more prisoners to be ready and safe for release when the period set for punishment expires.

Executive Summary 

This report presents the findings of a prisoner consultation carried out by Prison Reform Trust’s Building Futures programme. Initial scoping work on the programme revealed that sentence progression was a major concern of people serving long sentences. For some time, worries about progression have formed a significant part of the caseload of our Advice and Information service. We carried out the consultation remotely and via a series of roundtable events. Around 100 responses were received to the consultation, which asked prisoners to reflect on four questions relating to their progression. 

Section 2 of the report describes the structure of the different kinds of long sentences being served by consultation respondents. It also unpacks two key terms in the consultation responses that follow. 

The first is ‘risk’. Prisons assess and manage a large variety of risks and the term is used in many ways. For clarity’s sake, we therefore take some time in section 2.2 to unpack the term ‘risk’: what different forms it takes, what we mean by it in the report, and some of the reasons prisoners appear to become confused or disillusioned by the apparently simple proposition that they are required to reduce it. 

The second key term is ‘progression’. Prisoners who responded to the consultation tended to understand ‘progression’ to mean something more broad than ‘risk reduction’ and a gradual reclassification into lower-security conditions as they neared the date of their release. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 question whether ‘risk reduction’ alone can provide a coherent basis for thinking about ‘progression’, given that many sentences are now decades long, meaning that offence-related rehabilitative work may be completed many years before risk can be adequately tested in the community. We suggest that what ideas of ‘progression’ will engage prisoners will depend on factors beyond risk, including the age they are at conviction, and the length of their sentences. This, we suggest, points to the need for an individualised, personalised approach to ‘progression’, sensitive to the individual circumstances of the person whose sentence is being planned. 

Section 3 sets out the findings of the consultation. Section 3.2 shows how many long-term prisoners felt confused and uncertain about how they were meant to progress or to make positive, productive use of their time. Many believed that compliance and the completion of offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) were the only expectations coming to them from the prison, and some pointed out that mere compliance offered very little to motivate or challenge them over the long term. Their evaluations of OBPs were mixed, but there was a consensus that only in rare cases was participation in them enough to secure a progressive move, leading to the perception that the sentence plan left many ‘stagnant’ years in the sentence. Respondents also described problems where information used in risk assessment could appear inaccurate, irrelevant or out-of-date. We suggest that for many, there is a mismatch between what prisons appear to expect from them (broadly, compliance), and what will secure their own development.

This led to challenges that some respondents called ‘nothing time’: the years, often in the middle part of the sentence, where the sentence felt purposeless and stagnant. Section 3.3 presents responses from those who described how they had tried to give these years purpose and meaning, for example by pursuing their own plans and objectives. Educational opportunities were of major interest to many in this group, but all kinds of prison work and other activities were described as worthwhile. Many thought that achievements in these areas went under-recognised by prisons. Respondents also suggested it was difficult to access the right opportunities, and difficult to have their efforts taken seriously and recorded by the prison. Some said taking responsibility for their own personal development required initiative, persistence and determination, and often also strong reading and writing skills to put their case to the prison. These are not possessed by all prisoners. 

Section 3.4 discusses respondents’ views on casework and on how their relationships with staff affected their progression. These views were mixed. There was positive feedback on recent changes in policy, especially relating to the introduction of the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) policy framework. In particular, the introduction of the keyworker role was positively received by those in prisons where keywork was operational. However, respondents also expressed the view that the Prison Offender Managers (POMs) and Community Offender Managers (COMs) relationships were distant and remote, and that these did not always take account of information that the respondent saw as relevant to their personal development. In fact, respondents noted that officers on the wings, whom they saw and interacted with daily, should be more directly involved in recording information relevant to progression, as they are most likely to notice positive changes in behaviour. 

Finally, in section 4, we set out the recommendations arising from this consultation which draw on contributions from prisoners to set out ways of improving the routes to progression for long-sentenced prisoners.

A Debate Anyone?

It seems to be increasingly difficult to have a serious debate about probation at the moment and I'm not at all sure why that is? I remain ever-hopeful though and this from a day or so ago seems to be as good a discussion starter as any:-  

To borrow from the new business vernacular: there's a single source of 'truth' which defines where we go next. But when you hold the power that 'single source' is whatever you choose it to be. The revisionistas in power are working hard to rewrite everything for future generations. For the Probation Service that has meant being rubbished, dismantled, dismissed & re-invented.

I think anyone trawling through this blog from start to present day will find regular references to the politicians' perennial folly, i.e. reinventing the wheel. Some things can be reimagined, many things can be improved - but the disingenuous, dishonest, despicable act of destroying the whole & replacing with less while proclaiming there's more has surely had its day?

So how stupid are we? Even more stupid than they imagine we are, it seems. But the clever manipulation has been the forty year fishing expedition. Forty years of dangling bait, of fattening up the appetite, of developing dependency upon the tasty morsels. And now? Now they are reeling in, and many cannot unhook themselves from that dependency - mortgages, credit card debt, expensive cars, regular holidays in exotic places, overseas property or generally excessive lifestyle choices.

For far too many others the dependency is more fundamental - food, warmth, shelter, healthcare, childcare. How many probation staff could leave next week? Probably a handful. So there are a vast majority who are reliant on the job. And consequently a vast majority who dare not utter a word of criticism. Add in the civil service code of silence... and they achieve pure, unadulterated command & control.

--oo00oo--

But then there's this:-

Just found a pay slip from March 2010 which was about when l hit PO max. My current income is £170 more than then. This is why we cannot retain staff.

--oo00oo-- 

There are differing views on how things are going. This a recent response on Twitter:- 

From my view point I have greater confidence in senior leadership nationally. There is more energy being spent in creating the right culture and ethos. Putting some of that responsibility and power in the hands of front line staff to shape what it looks like. Also a desire to take the best from both organisations to shape the new one. For me (personally) feels more positive that previous changes and I have optimism for this being a great organisation once more.

--oo00oo-- 

But there remains widespread concern regarding the direction of travel:-

As I retired Probation were not addressing social need and were just becoming enforcement officers, I did not agree. If Probation is to be successful again it needs to address social need of offenders as well as ensuring the order is managed appropriately. What its ethos was originally to care about the people on orders/licence/in custody.

I'm a former PO now a criminal justice Social Worker in Scotland. Having worked in both systems, there is no doubt in my mind which approach is better, more coherent and effective. My SW training improved and made sense of my practice in ways I never thought possible. The CJSW system in Scotland is far from perfect but, IMO, works 100% better. We understand and manage risk very well but within a more coherent framework of professional knowledge and compassionate values. When they took the SW out of probation they very seriously undermined it. The abandonment of SW training in England was purely ideological and an obvious attempt to toughen probation up and gut it of its core values. Genuine probation work is social work, in my humble opinion. Always has been. 

Agree. I'm a social work trained PO but my greatest hope would to be to come out from beneath the 'dead hand' of the Civil Service. My only caveat is that nothing greater can be achieved until we have adequate resources in terms of trained probation officers, newly trained alongside experienced officers; with more than the bare minimum in each team so there is some resilience at times of staff leaving, maternity leave, sick leave etc, otherwise we are constantly in crisis / reactive mode, involving endless reallocation of cases. The problem is not that we do not know the best ways of supporting change, whilst also protecting the public, but it takes time and consistency and until we have more resources, I question the degree of change possible. Of course in order to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders, we need access to ancillary services: Mental Health, accommodation, drug and alcohol services, supportive education and training services, Social Services, etc, etc

Probation should follow the ethos of youth offending teams with multi-agency approach where welfare concerns are balanced with risk - having left probation for YOT I feel like I am back doing the probation role I originally trained for.

I think a holistic approach is probably needed. Yes we have to manage risk, but surely one of the best ways to do that is to improve the protective factors like accommodation, employment, health, emotional wellbeing, relationships etc. Building a relationship of trust is also important, rather than saying no straight off the bat to a lot of things, we should investigate more and try to build their faith that they won't reoffend.

--oo00oo--

I'll end with the following private observation via email:- 

I have to admit that it puts me off reading the blogs to see a string of one-dimensional rants from “Anonymous” (how many of them are there?) which sometimes seems little better than trolling. It’s very sad because I’m sure there’s also a much wider and more rational and engaging audience out there.

Do an OASys - Or Assess Risk!

There seems to be so many discussion threads at the moment, I'm concerned we could be missing some gems along the way, such as this belter of a rant from Friday that I'm fairly sure will have quite a few experienced colleagues nodding sagely:- 

So the research concluded "OASYS is a pile of shite". Something we all knew.

The problem is that the organisation has invested so heavily in "how to do OASYS", rather than "how to assess risk". Certainly in my area over the past few years, the focus has been on OASYS QA Standards, training about how to use them, QA feedback, with the feedback on literally "how" to fill out each box to "fit" these ridiculous standards.

OASYS is frankly not based on research - it doesn't take a professional to identify that a violent offence took place because of "thinking and behaviour" and "attitudes". This leads to ridiculous comments like "he needs to improve his thinking skills", "he needs to improve his consequential thinking", "he needs to improve his victim empathy", "he needs to change his attitudes to others and society". 

OASYS guides you little to identify the factors that prevent people perpetrating offences - why can the starting point not be what already exists in Mr X's life to prevent another offence and how we can now build upon that as the basis of the work we do. OASYS and certainly not Probation actually tells us HOW to address the psychological risk factors referred to - they've reduced us to "referral agents" - refer to TSP for thinking, drugs agency for drugs, and CRC for ETE/finances - and my "intervention" will be to "discuss" this with him and "motivate" him to attend. That's NOT how I see my role and I do try to do more, but that's how belittled I feel by "senior management" who have equipped me with few skills (other than what I have read up, learned, trained in prior to probation) - ultimately I can totally see why the service users say "what's the point in me attending probation - what exactly do you DO"?

The organisation has reaped what is sowed and yet STILL persists to sow the OASYS seed, piling on the pressure to do more of them, adding in new sections about pillars and arms and failing to provide what we actually need. 

The organisation rolls out a new "statistical score" and assumes people are just going to naturally know what these things are, how to use them - they treat us like total machines which is demeaning.....and then blame US for "only seeing RSR as a risk allocation tool" when that was entirely how THEY rolled it out to US....and then scratch their heads and say "we just can't understand why the staff aren't using RSR in their assessments" or "we just can't understand why staff feel we don't listen" - because we are SICK to our BACK TEETH of writing meaningless shite into OASYS, against your meaningless QA standards and when we raise this in team meetings, HOS briefings or whatever we are shouted down and told "the tool is based on research" - what research? Research completed in 2003 by some cronies at the MOJ???? Cronies that think the phrase "When is the risk likely to be greatest" actually makes grammatical sense and needs a four paragraph reinterpretation in the QA standards?

What people need is proper training and grounding, on a regular basis, on the psychological (and other) risk factors referred to in this report. What we get is yet another iteration of OASYS or OASYS QA which consumes our time, energy and focus. What we need is the reflective approach mentioned here, allowing us to formulate this neatly into perhaps one or two paragraphs, not an OASYS. 

But no, what we get is page, after page, after page of tick boxes, pull throughs, drop-downs, "evidence boxes" (I think there must be about 10), and ridiculous standards that talk about "list your sources in date order, with name and author" in order to get "EXCELLENT", or meticulous guidance about what a bloody "current situation" is!

--oo00oo--

As an aside, one of my most memorable career low spots occurred some years ago during a prison visit to HMP Doncatraz. To my utter astonishment, I witnessed a colleague entering an interview room with the full OASys manual under their arm!   

Assessing Risk

Regular readers will be only too well aware of my long-term antithesis towards OASys, the most fiendish of inventions designed to consume vast amounts of time to absolutely no useful purpose. Over the years we have discussed its corrosive and harmful consequences at length but which seem perfectly suited to the command and control ethos of HMPPS. Bearing this in mind, it's likely that the following research from the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology and reported by CEP will be of interest:-  

A RISKY BUSINESS: EXPLORING VARIATION IN PROBATION RISK ASSESSMENTS AND FACTORS INFLUENCING CLINICAL ASSESSMENTS.

INTRODUCTION 

Probation officer risk assessments are used to make key criminal justice decisions and to allocate resources. To ensure validity and reliability, they must be based on factors proven within empirical research to link to recidivism and undertaken with a transparent approach. This study aims to explore whether risk assessment judgements vary between groups of practitioners and what factors influence probation decisions about risk. The research questions were explored by discussing constructed vignettes in focus groups across six locations. The study adds to the conceptual understanding of risk in probation practice. The findings have led to recommendations for further research and suggestions for probation policy and training. 

INTERPRETAION OF RISK FACTORS 

There was a commonality in the risk factors considered across the groups but the interpretation of how the factors impact on risk was different. Factors meant different things to different practitioners. The offence detail carried most weight in assessing risk, meaning practitioners assess the offence and not the offender. Generic risk factors were considered, rather than information specific to the individual. Crucially, psychological factors were not considered at all. 

LOCAL PRACTICE 

Variation of outcome was found across an individual and an office level with demographics of assessors and office location being possible contributory factors to risk assessment. All focus groups felt middle manager influence had the ability to dominate assessments. Regardless of a probation officer making a trained assessment, collating and analysing data, it can be altered by a middle manager. Ultimately leading to someone who has not met or interviewed the offender making the decision on the risk category. This authority to change assessments was viewed negatively by practitioners. 

ASSESSMENT TOOLS AND TIME 

Ultimately the participants expressed a distrust in static scores suggesting they do not use them to form their final risk assessment. By not recognising the strength of such tools, probation officers are conducting assessments based entirely on individual, clinical judgements. Practitioners stated they avoid reviewing assessments due to time available, so the recorded risk and the actual assessed risk may be different. All officers stated time impacted on their assessment. In practice this meant practitioners could find more information to verify a high risk assessment. The number of high-risk cases appears to be dependent on the amount of time an officer has to spend on an assessment. In policy resource is specified to follow risk, but in practice risk may also follow resource. 

FINDINGS 

Probation Officer risk assessment varies by; - how officers interpret risk factors. - middle manager influence and local practice. - faith in tools and time to use them. - perception of service user trust and honesty. - familiarity with service user and offence. - fear of getting it wrong. 

TRUST AND HONESTY 

The consistent starting point with all groups was; risky until proven otherwise. The focus groups did not talk about the reciprocity of trust. By viewing trust as a one-way interaction, probation officers may, therefore, be limiting their value in the desistance process. Honesty was unique to other considerations in this study as it was viewed as a personal betrayal against the probation officer. The offenders were not just seen as breaching rules, they perceived as lying to the individual officer. Probation officers expected interactions to be meaningful and engaging. Silence was presumed as guilt and a factor which increased risk. Probation officers increased risk if an offender was not open and transparent in their interactions. In certain scenarios, this extended to the offender’s family. The relationship between offender and probation officer was a factor which influenced risk assessments. As the relationship between offender and probation officer may affect compliance and engagement, compliance and engagement affect probation officer risk assessments. 

FAMILIARITY 

Risk assessments were influenced not just by offence type, but also by the officers’ familiarity with assessing that offence type. The more familiar with an offence type an officer felt, the lower the risk. Probation officers anchor, or hold on to, previous behaviour which lead to a high-risk assessment. In making current assessments they show a bias towards this anchor and interpret current information to have similar characteristics. This resulted in an aversion to depart from a high risk assessment. Reluctance to reduce risk was echoed across all focus groups. The reason for this was specified as a fear of being wrong. 

FEAR OF GETTING IT WRONG 

All the focus groups discussed a sense of responsibility and a moral duty to get their risk assessments right. The pressure from public and professional scrutiny was discussed in all groups. The probation officers commented that they felt personally accountable and this influenced their risk assessments making them more risk averse, for fear of being dismissed. This factor was distinctive because probation officers consciously knew they changed risk assessments due to fear. The change was always in one direction, making them more risk averse. 

Q: Do risk assessment judgements vary between groups of practitioners? 

A: Yes, risk assessments vary. Office location, age of practitioner and experience of practitioner impacted on the risk assessments of the sample. Some officers and some probation teams were more risk averse than others. One of the reasons for this appeared to be familiarity with making assessments on certain offence types. Where an office perceived an offence to be more frequent, risk was assessed as medium. Where an offence was considered unusual, officers allocated a higher risk category. However, all focus groups showed an a conscious, tendency to inflate risk assessments due to a fear of being wrong and being subjected to scrutiny. They described this anxiety as a relatively recent phenomenon in their practice with is growing over time. 

“We up [increase] our assessments because we are so nervous about being hauled over the coals.” 

Q: What are the factors that influence decisions about risk? 

A: The most critical risk factor in assessing risk across all focus groups was offence details. There was a complete lack of psychological risk factors being used. Generic risk factors, such as substance abuse, were used to assess risk even when there was no apparent association to the specific offender being assessed. Trust and honesty were defined in a consistent way by probation officers, but the duration required for an offender to prove trustworthiness varied. Risk was increased to secure resources. There was a commonality in the risk factors used but variety in the interpretation of whether a risk factor increased or decreased a risk. 

“We have no shared accommodation, so increase the risk to high to get an AP. Or put to high risk at a recall to avoid a 28 day walkout.” 

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE 

The study has highlighted a training need for probation officers regarding the importance of assessing psychological factors, how to interpret risk factors and whether they increase or decrease risk. A disregard of actuarial tools resulted in statistical evidence proven to assess risk being missed from assessments, possibly leading to a reduction in accuracy. Training could be provided to increase probation officers’ knowledge of such tools to increase their perceived legitimacy and subsequent use. Training completed at a local level may reinforce local practice, which has contributed to variation. As such, training which has participants from multiple office locations may be beneficial. Middle manager influence was found to both undermine probation officers and result in assessments being competed without any contact with the offender. Policy regarding the value of this may wish to be considered, as could training for middle managers. 

This research has highlighted a developing practice of defensive decision making for fear of being wrong. To prevent this, more is required than merely training to increase accuracy. To challenge this fear, probation officers must feel confident that they are viewed as professionals making skilled decisions and supported if it goes wrong. But it must be recognised that they cannot predict the future. Policy makers may wish to consider this in developing processes for reviewing serious further offences and messages communicated about such incidents. Structured professional support may be required in the aftermath of a serious further offence to mitigate against the nervousness of scrutiny and error. Clinical supervision may allow time for probation officers to reflect and refine their skills. This supervision is best placed away from middle-manager influence. 

“Ultimately, I will get the sack if I get it wrong. For my own ass covering I leave them as high” 

CONCLUSION 

This research illustrates the individuality and subjectivity of assessing risk and that this can result in variations. The study found that probation officer risk assessments vary in both method and outcome. How, where and who undertakes an assessment can impact on the outcome by considering or interpreting factors differently. This variation provides an unequal provision of service, or justice by geography. As a member of the public, a politician or service user, there may be an expectation of fairness and legitimacy in risk assessment practice. This cannot be realised if two practitioners, in two different locations make different assessments given the same information. Probation officers do not consider all risk factors defined in empirical evidence and have a mistrust of some tools. The implications of this, is increased subjectivity, inconsistency, reduced accuracy and diminished legitimacy. What became apparent during this study was an overarching, and conscious, practice of defensive decision making by probation officers. The fear of getting it wrong was developing a risk averse culture. Probation officers spoke passionately, mostly knowledgably, sometimes not so knowledgably, and professionally about how to assess risk and, worryingly, how they feel under impossible pressure to predict the future. It is hoped that this study will encourage additional research, training and support to ensure probation officers make accurate, legitimate and defensible assessments.

Amy Thornton 

Deputy Head of Probation - Black Country

HMPPS

Probation During Covid

Probation doesn't feature that often on tv, but here's a piece from BBC Wales on the constraints faced by specialist officers supervising sex offenders in Cardiff:-  

Covid-19: 'My pandemic work with dangerous prison leavers'

Working from home during a pandemic has brought extra challenges for probation officers who work with serious offenders after their release from prison. Many have had to handle unpleasant subject matter in their own homes, as they deal remotely with violent or sexual offenders.

I spent the day with a member of the probation team that works with the 50 most dangerous male offenders in Cardiff, to see how they are managing. Salli Dixon is part of the special team of probation officers usually based at a police station. While some face-to-face appointments have continued, whether in the office or the offender's doorstep, others have to be done over the phone or by video call. The pandemic also means more of the work is done remotely from home, including work with sex offenders.

"It makes it a little more hard to switch off mentally, and you're having really difficult conversations in your home environment, which feels intrusive," she says. "But it hasn't made the service any less effective. We can't have a less effective service - we protect the public, so we've just had to adapt."

Her first call of the day is with a registered child sex offender, who is living in a halfway house after recently being released from prison. He's tested positive for Covid-19 and has been moved into isolation quarters, meaning their appointment must now be over the phone. He tells her he's anxious about plans to find him his own flat where he would be living alone full-time. The length of time prison leavers spend in approved premises like a halfway house has been reduced during the pandemic.

"It's a little early if I'm honest - far, far too early," he says. "When my mind is in a corner and up against a wall - it just goes 'right where is the way out? The way out is to go back to prison'."

His anxieties are kicking in, meaning his risks increase, Salli explains. "He has got 16 or 17 instances of breaching his restrictions, usually by going too close to an area where there are children - like a nursery or school. He says he does that because he wants to self-sabotage and go back into prison," she says. "So when he feels that he is being moved into his own accommodation, where he'll be by himself, he gets anxious and he thinks it's easier to just do something that would warrant him going back inside. "The risk to the public would be that he would commit a child contact sex offence. He hasn't done that yet, but we can't rule out that he wouldn't."

How does she feel discussing the nature of his offending? "We're not completely desensitised as probation officers, because we still hear things that shock us," she says. "No matter how long you've done a job it is quite difficult sometimes and quite unusual to hear somebody talk candidly about their sexual views towards children."

The small team deals with complex cases - like repeat domestic violence or sex offenders who also have additional issues, such as a personality disorder, mental health problems or drug and alcohol misuse. Known as Wisdom (Wales Integrated Serious and Dangerous Offender Management), they have a reduced case load to reflect the risks posed, as well as more resources than typical probation officers.

Her second case of the day is able to come to the office. He committed a sex offence against a vulnerable adult and was released earlier this year after decades in prison. Much has changed since he was a young man on the outside, and he says the pace of life compared with prison has felt overwhelming at times. Weeks after his release, lockdown was announced and he too wonders whether it would be better to be back in prison.

"We've done a lot of work around what's going well and the reasons he wants to stay out," says Salli. "If you reinforce that enough, they will make changes and they will stay out. He's done phenomenally well."

She still carries out some home visits, but they're now on the doorstep, which naturally makes the job more challenging. "We're risk assessors, it's what we're trained to do. So even though we might not be able to physically go inside, we'll do everything we can to make sure that everyone is safe."

The use of video calls also means more checks can be done in a day, but if Salli is working from home she has to make sure none of her personal items are on view. "I would try and have video calls in the office because not only is it safer but I'm in the right frame of mind to be talking to somebody [in that] environment."

Covid-19 has also brought greater practical challenges for the men she works with. "It's made it more difficult for people to access basic things like housing, money and universal credit, signing up at the doctors, getting a prescription. We've had to be more hands on in terms of helping people get set up."

The rewards keep her going, she said, and she is proud of the good the team is doing for the wider community. "We change people's lives," she says. "I wouldn't do it if I didn't enjoy it. It's got its ups and downs and you know you can't help change everyone. You have to manage your expectations about what you can help people achieve."

--oo00oo--

As an aside, I notice there are concerns in some quarters regarding the possible consequences of remote working. This seen on Facebook:-

Is the balance between the necessities of emergency delivery and the consideration, protection, and maintenance of professional discretion being achieved?

The anecdotal experience of many of those working remotely in probation during COVID-19 has, in a number of cases, indicated a disproportionate increase in scrutiny and micro management of work relative to the measures that are required. This has been described as oppressive. 

As the period of crisis continues questions are now starting to be asked regarding whether staff who could, for instance, relatively easily work from home or those who are vulnerable are being ‘encouraged’ back into workplaces some of whom may not be safe. It may also be the case that lower paid workers in probation are being expected to take more risks regarding potential exposure to COVID-19 than those in senior management or who are providing corporate services on the basis that their work is more amenable to remote working. It has been suggested by some practitioners that increased scrutiny or viral risk should attract increased financial compensation, however, the immediate concern is that this might penalise vulnerable persons who need to be protected or actually encourage unnecessary risk taking or even reckless behaviour. Is enough actually being done to facilitate remote working for all who wish to or could do so? Is enough being done to ensure safe working for those who wish or need to work non-remotely? Is probation putting service users at increased risk compared to the general population?

Whilst greater integration of management information systems to provide better quality information to inform decision making around more efficient use of available resources is to be broadly welcomed, particularly in relation to improved workload management and the management of physical, intellectual, and emotional labour, arguably this intensification has to be balanced with a greater degree of trust and increased acknowledgement of and respect for professional discretion and autonomy - that appears to have been sacrificed in favour of command and control. Probation staff are not simply cogs in the criminal justice machine and there is a strong case for a conscious organisational shift towards supporting those at the frontline rather than subjecting them to a constant stream of directives accompanied by intensified surveillance and control. 

There is a strong argument for those representing staff, such as trade unions, to question those making decisions regarding the provision of services in difficult times and ensure that the current crisis is not used as a smokescreen for more intense workplace control and less individual professional discretion.

https://www.lrdpublications.org.uk/publications.php...