The SPO Role

Continuing with the theme of probation in Wales going its own way, it's interesting to note that both HMPI reports into the role of SPOs published last month include description of the new work in Probation in Wales on the "Human Factors Model" which "acknowledges that we all make mistakes and that we must learn from these", as well as "understanding better why things go right most of the time.” Lets look at the first:-

The role of the senior probation officer and management oversight in the Probation Service

Foreword 

The Probation Service manages a complex and challenging caseload. The work of probation practitioners in court and sentence management teams is fundamental to the Service’s ability to protect the public. Our probation inspection programme found that, where it was required, the quality of management oversight was insufficient in 72 per cent of the inspected cases. It is therefore vital that effective management oversight arrangements are in place. This is currently not the case. We found that management oversight policies are applied inconsistently, and this is underpinned by a defensive operational culture. This undermines the quality of decision-making and the confidence of operational staff and is of serious concern. 

A revised framework is required to enable both day-to-day decision-making and the proactive assurance of cases. Only 39 per cent of senior probation officers in our survey believe that the current management oversight policies meet the needs of probation service delivery, and the probation caseload. Lines of responsibility are not clear, and in relation to staff supervision and oversight, policy implementation has not been well coordinated. It is therefore unsurprising that many operational staff lack confidence in the current framework and are uncertain as to their responsibilities. 

Operational staff in Wales have responded positively to the introduction of the ‘human factors’ approach in sentence management. The new operational structure has resulted in a less frenetic working culture and more considered decision-making. The resilience of this structure and its impact on the quality of delivery still need to be evaluated. However, we welcome the proactive arrangements now in place to meet the challenges of the probation caseload. 

The senior probation officer role should focus on service delivery, and the management oversight and development of their team. The spans of responsibility of the current role prevent this, and their focus is too often on non-operational tasks. This undermines the senior probation officer’s ability to deliver effective management control. Until this is addressed, their focus on operational delivery will continue to be diluted. 

We have expressed concerns about the senior probation officer workload in previous reports, and those concerns remain. Internal probation service reviews have also found the workload to be excessive. During this inspection, we met and heard from many senior probation officers who had unacceptably high workloads across a wide range of responsibilities. Additional administrative support has been provided and there has been significant success in filling vacancies. The responsibilities of the role have, however, remained unchanged. 

The role of the senior probation officer and arrangements for management oversight in the Probation Service need to be reviewed. This will, now, take place within a merged ‘One HMPPS’ governance structure for prisons and probation services. It is important that operational staff are consulted meaningfully and that new policies are grounded in the realities of the probation caseload. Our recommendations, if followed, are designed to support senior probation officers to focus on the oversight of work and, in so doing, to improve public protection. 

Sue McAllister 

Interim HM Chief Inspector of Probation January 2024

Executive summary 

Context 

The role of the senior probation officer (SPO) and the delivery of management oversight are central to effective sentence management and court work in the Probation Service. The probation caseload is complex and challenging. It is therefore important that the teams delivering these key services in courts and the community are supported and that their work is overseen effectively. Since before the unification of the Probation Service, there have been concerns about the workload of SPOs and the effectiveness of management oversight. These concerns have continued following the findings from HM Inspectorate of Probation’s core inspection programme 2021–2023 and recent high-profile Serious Further Offence (SFO) independent reviews. The formation of the unified service has seen several policy initiatives in relation to management oversight – notably, the touch points model (TPM) and the reflective practice supervision standards (RPSS). In addition, the Probation Service managerial role review (HMPPS, 2022) considered the pressures and workload of the SPO in sentence management and court teams. 

This inspection examined the effectiveness of the current arrangements and policies. It focused on management oversight and the SPO role in sentence management and court work because it is in these teams that the key decisions in relation to risk and public protection are taken. As part of this examination, we considered whether the current operating structure meets the requirement of managing the dynamic probation caseload. 

Methodology 

We undertook fieldwork in five probation regions and held focus groups with the key staff groups, including senior staff and operational managers. In the 15 SPO focus groups we met a total of 94 SPOs. In the probation practitioner (PP) focus groups, we met a total of 82 PPs. Fieldwork was also undertaken with senior leaders in the national HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) teams. 

We also circulated a national survey to all SPOs which included key questions on management oversight and their responsibilities. A total of 392 SPOs completed this survey, which was 27 per cent of the total number of SPOs in post at that time. In the regions, we also asked SPOs in sentence management and court teams to complete an activity survey. We received 29 responses. 

The management oversight data from our core inspection programme was analysed in relation to SPO vacancy rates and spans of control. 

Policy, strategy, and staffing 

There is no overall strategy for the delivery of effective management oversight in the Probation Service. Different management oversight frameworks for casework and performance management have been introduced, but not as part of a coherent framework. This has contributed to the confusion and uncertainty felt by operational staff. In the future, sentence management and courts will sit in the chief probation officer’s directorate, which will have responsibility for management oversight policy. It is important that the views of frontline staff and an understanding of the probation caseload inform decision-making in the new structure. 

Following a cultural assessment of the organisation, the probation service in Wales has adopted a learning organisation model. Central to this is the implementation of a ‘human factors’ approach in the sentence management teams. A premise of the approach is that humans are fallible, and errors are to be expected, even in the best organisations. The analysis of culture and clarity of communication that supported implementation in Wales is impressive and has helped to embed it in the organisation. Sustaining this change and learning from the experience will now be key. More widely, regional leaders are cautious, doubting that there is an appetite, nationally, for the adoption of a systems-based approach to learning.

Staffing levels for SPOs and PPs have improved but the Probation Service has an inexperienced workforce. This contributes to the dependence and lack of confidence of PPs. Some regions continue to experience high vacancy levels. This inevitably increases the stress on teams, directly affecting the availability, and quality, of management oversight. 

The effectiveness of management oversight in sentence management and court teams

Overall, we found a reactive management oversight culture. SPOs are generally dependent on PPs raising concerns with them before they examine a case. One-to-one supervision meetings between SPOs and PPs have a broad agenda, restricting the time available to review cases. Only 39 per cent of SPO respondents working in sentence management thought that the current management oversight policies met the needs of probation service delivery and the probation caseload. 

The implementation of the TPM and the RPSS varied across the regions. The TPM ensures that all cases are reviewed by an SPO at some point during the management of the case. However, the model is inflexible, and this can precipitate unnecessary management activity. It was introduced with complex recording instructions which are used inconsistently across the regions. In most of the inspected regions, there was little evidence that planned RPSS sessions were taking place. 

In the inspected English regions, we were told that a culture of fear was becoming embedded. This is driven primarily by the fear of SFOs and the consequent need to evidence management oversight activity. This undermines the confidence of PPs, and the effectiveness and quality of management oversight practice. The SPO review (HMPPS, 2020) recognised that the demand placed on SPOs to countersign work was excessive. A countersigning framework was introduced in February 2022 and relaunched in May 2023. However, this has not reduced the burden. 

The human factors approach in Wales has improved team communication and provides a more responsive approach to the oversight of cases. Morning check-in meetings and SPO protected hours are now central to operational delivery. This provides a more effective model for managing the probation caseload, particularly in relation to changes in the level of risk of serious harm. It allows for, and anticipates, crises in line with the often complex, challenging, non-compliant reality of the individuals managed. 

The demands of the court environment are recognised in the management oversight arrangements for court teams. These teams have a large proportion of probation services officers (PSOs) working in them and they could consult either an SPO or a probation officer on matters such as the risk of serious harm or curfew requirements. However, the gatekeeping arrangements for court reports are inconsistent. This is partly due to staffing levels, but also the demands of the court’s timescale. However, all reports on individuals assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm are gatekept by a qualified PP or SPO. 

The SPO role and the operational structure 

The current management structure and arrangements for the delivery of sentence management do not enable effective management oversight. The structure does not anticipate the demands, or the complexities, of the probation caseload. It is dependent on SPOs being available to make decisions when crises arise. The nature of the caseload means that key management consultations and decisions are needed outside of planned oversight meetings, and the operational arrangements for sentence management should reflect this requirement. 

The SPO span of responsibility includes non-operational tasks, such as facilities management and health and safety. There has been an improvement to the support given to SPOs with the introduction of the case administrator and the relaunch of the managerial hubs for human resources (HR) issues. However, in our national survey, only 17 per cent of sentence management SPOs said that they had time to deliver effective management oversight on cases. 

Unlike the English regions, in Wales the quality development officer (QDO) is located within the probation delivery unit (PDU) structure. Under this line management arrangement, they are involved more directly in operational delivery and more able to look at specific areas of practice relevant to the PDU teams. 

There is no national SPO induction and training programme. The English regions and Wales have developed their own induction and development programmes. A Civil Service e-learning package on generic management skills is available, alongside the recently launched HMPPS ‘people manager handbook’. However, these arrangements do not fully meet the requirements of the SPO role’s demands and complexity.

Recommendations 

HM Prison and Probation Service should: 

1. ensure that HMPPS delivers a clear policy framework for management oversight and first-tier assurance that meets the demands of the probation caseload 

2. ensure that effective management oversight arrangements are in place at the regional and PDU level to assure the quality of work to protect the public 

3. review the business support functions in relation to facilities management and human resources, to ensure that SPOs are focused on the management oversight of casework 

4. design and implement a comprehensive induction and professional development programme for all SPOs working in sentence management and the courts 

5. fully evaluate the human factors approach adopted in Wales and consider implementing it across the English regions 

6. review the operating model to consider locating QDOs within the PDU governance structure, in line with the approach taken in Wales.

In Case You Miss It

Because this blog marches on at an alarming rate sometimes, it's quite likely significant contributions get missed, either because they are left on earlier posts, or the agenda changes and the discussion has moved on. For example, the following came in last night on an earlier post:- 

I’m an SPO and I always defend my team. I find the OM v SPO divide to be so unhelpful, and unfair. Huge workloads impact us all and I’m tirelessly trying to keep my team (and myself) afloat. We all need to unite to tackle the wider HMPPS issues, NOT divide. 

The comment about WMT- there is often nobody else to allocate to (unless you can magic some POs up) and cases have to be give an OM, which is difficult to do when people are at breaking point. I’ve been doing 50 + hours weeks for a prolonged period, to help manage the continued increased demand for PSRs. I will always chip in to see cases and do tasks. Just because you can’t see the work, doesn’t mean SPOs aren’t under huge stress too. The amount of unrealistic and unreasonable task put on middle managers is only increasing. My well-being is dwindling and efforts to keep staff well mostly go unmarked.

As for attendance warnings, we have to discuss all our decisions with an HR BP and often our reviews can be disregarded, unless we use our professional discretion/have a very good argument to not issue warnings. It’s a bit like the tick box a comment for OM judgement for risk assessments and enforcement, our skills as managers are being limited by Civil Service HR drivel. Over and out, from an exhausted SPO.

******

Mention of HR brought the following to mind from a week ago:-

I was looking at the sickness issues and found this reference of the SSCL health provider Optima. Pretty awful read and company we fund:-

Absolutely hideous job, started working and was never given any training, when I didn’t know how to do something, I would ask managers and then they would write me up a meeting with them saying that I should just know. Only reason I know anything about my job is because I’ve figured it out for myself! Management are awful, over work you for minimum wage. Management very unprofessional, saying things out of pocket and making you feel uncomfortable. Intimidation they love to use on you here, they will bully you!

Also say goodbye to annual leave because they will take it away when it’s already been approved last minute because they need you in! Awful working environment, offices grim and don’t think have been cleaned since 1973. Often no hand soap or loo roll, and say goodbye to tea and coffee! No staffroom. Incredibly understaffed no wonder! So will work you like a dog with no consideration having you do a thousand things at once! Be prepared to be micromanaged and treated like a child, constantly analysing everything you do and why you did it! 

Expect you to answer 50 emails a day whilst running a clinic, booking appointments, answering the phone that will never stop , running to grab bloods and vacs, having employees come in all day and a hundred other things! Also be prepared to be a personal secretary for the nurses and a IT technician.

Will also expect you to do all of this whilst management do nothing apart from badger you on why you haven’t started the million other things they need you do! Also, when you are looking for another job to leave optima HR will make a direct call to your manager to tell them you are actively looking to leave, and yes this actually happened! No sick days here! They will give you a formal meeting and warning for having a chest infection for 2 days off and expect doctors notes!

Ladies and gentleman welcome to the modern day work house! If you like the sound of all this then apply they would love the opportunity to run you into the ground and spit you out!

Date of experience: 05 October 2023

It's The System That Needs Fixing

It's Monday and I was going to post something about the abysmal refusal of the government to do anything about IPP sentences and the dreadful position many prisoners find themselves in, but it will have to wait. 2,500 hits to this website on a Sunday is pretty unusual and I take it as a strong indicator of the anger and despair growing amongst probation staff. 

As a profession, we currently have the eyes and ears of a big chunk of media upon us, keen and eager to know more about what we do; why we do it and why the hell it's all going wrong. More importantly, it's also an opportunity to start a conversation about how to fix it. The following contributions came in yesterday and add to the growing testimony to an organisation that needs fixing: not fixing individuals found to be at fault.

--oo00oo--  

I don't know anybody who wants to be in case management. Such is the stampede whenever an alternative position is advertised that caseworkers have been blocked from applying for them. Its incredibly unhealthy. Those with the PO qualification have hardly anywhere to go anyway as programmes and court work no longer at their grade.

****

How many qualified probation officers are there in the probation workforce team, effective practice team, performance teams or on other secondments? If this were the police or army they’d all be directed back onto the frontline to hold caseloads.

****

An excellent call which serves to highlight the real stresses which are so great and which leads to staff looking for ANY way out of the front line….I know of several OMIC staff who would rather leave than return to the office and Community Supervision.

****

I also know people who don’t want to go back to case management from other teams.

****
Be honest, how much time are Probation Officers actually spending with service users? Personally I have noticed the amount of time I can spend with them shrinking rapidly over the last few months. It seems to get worse each week. I don't want to be chained to the desk, I didn't come into this to be nothing but a pen pusher. I came in to work with human beings and try to improve their lives and those of the public impacted by their behaviour. All the pressure is to complete assessments, records, reports and very little time to do any meaningful work.

Why doesn't the service collect these stats? Of course they won't as they know it will be damming! At the moment I would say 20% of my time working face to face max! This is the problem being affiliated with the Civil Service, that monstrous bureaucratic machine. I knew it would be like that as I knew people working for civil service. We need to be an independent service again, working within our local authorities and serving local people and organisations . It's the only way!

****
With a caseload of 60+ which is made up of 2/3rds Med RoSH and a third Low, it’s a battle. It is a Sunday afternoon and I’m working. More fool me … maybe… but I am not alone.. Be honest; lot of us are today updating Delius, completing RMPs, clearing the decks as best we can ready for Monday. I am looking after the grandkids, they’re doing homework I’m playing catch up! My age is my saving grace…. How does a young PO or PSO with family do this job? Truth is, we do what we can. Some of our cases get a lot of attention because they present as being desperate and need our time. Somehow we find it; but at a cost to others. 

At least I can fight my corner on what I do as knowledge and experience counts. I want to tell my younger colleagues it will get better, that they’ve made the right choice and can make a difference. They have and they can with the right leadership. The reality is… we only have managers who can fill your inbox with edicts from on high.. targets, paint by number toolkits which they have no understanding of. Yes they are under pressure as well, but it is within their gift to push back and say stop this nonsense. Now more than ever we need leadership and less management. Sadly, I cannot say I would follow our current senior management: not even out of curiosity..

*****
Read the news, spot checks are incoming. Senior Managers are not asking for your fealty or opinion. They are telling you what is required. How you manage your probation work is up to you. Despite your “knowledge and experience” you are working on a Sunday, probably not out of choice, probably not even claiming overtime. You are losing not winning. You are complying and fighting to stay afloat, not “fighting your corner”. You are not doing better than those “younger”. Probation across the country is “inadequate” and every probation officer knows it because we haven’t the time or resources to do the job. It’ll be the same next week and the next, as it was last week and the previous. Managers can not and will not “push back”. It won’t “get better” and only you can say “stop”. I’m sorry to burst your bubble. This is the truth all probation officers need to recognise. The saying goes, it is at the precipice people find the will to change.

*****

Identifying risk correctly may provide the assessor with some protection when things go wrong, but just identifying the correct level of risk won't by itself prevent SFOs. Even whilst in prison people are prosecuted for serious offences, including murder and rape. A probation service that positions itself as the vanguard of public protection is on a hiding to nothing. There's always going to be SFOs committed by people subject to probation, and probation will continue to shoulder the blame. Where else would blame be attributed if not to those charged with public protection? Staff shortages, high caseloads, inexperience and burnout are all things that have to be considered as contributory factors and mitigation, but ultimately an SFO will always be seen as a failure.

In many ways those arguments are like the offender on licence caught shoplifting who says they're homeless, cant get benefits, can't access services they need, but ultimately as much as the circumstances can be understood and even sympathised with, it doesn't prevent the prosecution and the consequences that follow.

Probation needs to be able to do more for the people they're involved with to prevent reoffending. Probation staff need a professional qualification that allows them autonomy in the decisions they take, and be given the right to defend and explain their decisions when something goes wrong. They need time to spend with the people in their charge, and they need the ability and autonomy to tap into whatever local services they feel necessary that might help to stop someone reoffending. Endless assessments only identify problems, and that process becomes pretty pointless if you're unable to find solutions.

****

This may, or may not seem contentious. But can I suggest that there is another way to respond to the terrible work situation many face. I retired 3 years ago but I spent 5 years counting down to that date. I had returned from a spell in NOMS and was ill prepared for the absolute shit shower on my return to an SPO role in Yorkshire. It soon became clear to me that in order to remain sane I had to manage my work in a way that kept senior managers at arms length without alerting them to the fact that I was only doing what I wanted to do and generally ignoring the rest. 

Now I know people will say that I knew I was leaving and had little to lose, but it got me through 5 years. Just imagine what could be achieved if the majority of staff started to manage the service rather than letting the service manage them. I targeted a number of avenues. I spent the first few months perusing a number of policies. The sickness policy was a boon as I quickly worked out how much sick leave I could pull without drawing too much immediate attention. I also stopped filling out sickness absences that only involved a few days. That way staff avoided being drawn into a prolonged HR process. If the computer packed up I went home. If the systems aren’t working then that’s not my fault. The organisation failed to give me the tools to work so I didn’t. And more importantly I didn’t rush to complete a deadline if the computers failed. The service was to blame not me. So they got the blame. 

If my manager insisted it got done then I didn’t do something else and made it clear that hadn’t got done as the service was to blame. Then I started to take sick leave. But I was careful and planned it well in advance. On one occasion I got wind that I was going to be moved. So I waited until closer the time to move and promptly went off sick. Long term sick is better than a couple of days. Always take as close to 6 months as you can. I know that seems extreme but stress on a doctors note works a treat. Put your feet up and let your manager know how keen you are to come back…but don’t. 

When you eventually return the phased return is a joy. Until it ends then you wait until…another until you can repeat. Just one month with stress and this time a bit of anxiety. You have to break through the garbage we are fed about working hard and the usual tripe about a fair days pay for a fair days work blah blah blah. It’s engrained in us and our colleagues but you have to draw a line. Your objective shouldn’t be about damaging the organisation that’s just a by-product. Keep it simple like working to your contracted hours and easing the work place demands. Use work policies to your advantage. Health and safety policies can be very helpful. Do not involve the Union. They are not your friends and they will not support you. Get your support from like minded peers. 

May I suggest you start with your working hours. Once your weekly hours are completed go home. Do not work from home and do not work over a weekend. Study your contract and use it to your advantage. You can not be sacked if you refuse to work more hours than you are contracted to for. If the computers fuck up then push back. Do not rush to complete the work as this is not your fault. These are just few examples I’m sure you can think of others. The strategy is yours to decide. I can go on about work place sabotage but I think I have said enough now. 

So in conclusion game the system to your advantage. If you put your head up ensure you are on solid ground (the policies support you). Stick to your hours. If the systems fail you put the blame where it’s needed. Don’t be nice and offer to do it later that evening. Because I know you will want to. Undermine at every opportunity. Use the sickness policy. And when you get really pissed off hit the fire alarm it’s amazing how long that takes out of your day oh and remember it’s not your fault it went off so please don’t rush around or make up your hours just go home.

Lets Find Someone To Blame

Here we have the first indication of how the MoJ intends to deal with the probation problem, helpfully outlined in this Telegraph article yesterday:-

Probation officers face annual spot checks after series of blunders

New checks on officers' abilities to protect public from violent offenders come after 'unacceptable' failings led to murder of Zara Aleena

Every probation officer in England and Wales faces an annual check on their ability to protect the public from violent offenders after blunders that led to the murders of two women and three children, the Telegraph can reveal. All 18,000 probation officers will undergo a spot check where at least one of their offenders’ cases chosen at random will be reviewed by watchdogs to check they have made an accurate assessment of the risk to the public, and that they have in place all the necessary safeguards.

Staff in London will face six-monthly checks after a series of devastating HM inspectorate reports found “shocking” standards of supervision across the capital and “unacceptable” failings that led to the sexual assault and murder of Zara Aleena, a 35-year old law graduate. She was killed by Jordan McSweeney in a random late night attack in Ilford, east London, just days following his release from prison after probation officers wrongly classed him as medium rather than high risk and failed to recall him to jail for breaches of his licence.

It was the second case in a month after inspectors found similar errors with triple child killer Damien Bendall, 32, who was also wrongly assessed as “medium risk” which meant he walked free from court on a suspended sentence before murdering his partner and three children with a claw hammer. The cases prompted Justin Russell, the chief inspector of probation, to warn it was “impossible to say” the probation service was keeping the public safe from released violent criminals because it was “not getting it right” in its “core function” to safeguard society.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Fara Naz, Zara’s aunt who has acted as the family’s spokesperson, said: “A lot of people will say that there are rare people who commit monstrosities and that Aleena was very unlucky. But, actually, her murder was facilitated by a state that wasn’t doing its job.” She said it was important “front line officers aren’t blamed”, but that their managers and the way competence is assessed throughout the system was scrutinised to prevent a repeat of the tragedy. “If I am a manager and my team is operating well, that’s down to me,” she said. “If I’m not doing a good job, then it’s down to the person supervising me. So ultimately, who is accountable? It’s very important that we don’t just blame the probation officers.”

She welcomed the spot checks announced by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), but said they did not go far enough. She is backing a call by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, for all released offenders rated as medium and high risk and being supervised by the city’s probation service to be reviewed to ensure the assessments are sound and safe.

In a letter to Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary, and Suella Braverman, the Home Secretary - as seen by The Telegraph - Mr Khan urged an independent inquiry into McSweeney’s case to establish; what was known by prison, police and probation staff; what was done to mitigate the risk; and what more can be done. He also called for increased resources after HM inspectors warned in November that 500 vacancies in London were contributing to a staffing crisis that meant cases “could not be managed properly”, and that the “assessment and management of the risks of serious harm to the public are far from satisfactory”. They found nine out of 137 “medium risk” offenders in London had been wrongly categorised and should have been deemed as “high risk of serious harm”.

Under the new spot checks, any probation officers judged to have got it wrong will have their caseload reviewed, and receive extra training and support. The MoJ said a review of hundreds of “medium risk” cases in London had begun in November. It said urgent work was underway to improve the quality of risk assessments nationally through updated mandatory training for all new staff and strengthened quality checks of risk assessments, while an extra 2,500 probation officers had been recruited.

An MoJ spokesman said the murder of Zara Aleena was an “appalling” crime. “We apologise unreservedly to Zara Aleena’s family for the failings in this case,” he added.

--oo00oo--

Meanwhile, this is the reality as expressed by someone yesterday at 21:46:-

All I can say right now is it's exhausting. Not so long ago we were all accused of being risk averse! Now it's the opposite and we are threatened with exposure and SFO's if we don't tow the line, do everything perfectly, tick all the boxes, send people back to custody or breach them after two failures even though they are homeless and struggle to remember what day it is. 

We are supposed to pull rabbits out of hats and wave magic wands to get people housed when there is no housing, get their mental health back on track when that service is pretty broken, sort out their relationships, mend their broken lives and heal their trauma, we basically have to do it all whilst chained to the computer screen churning out endless reports and doing mindless e training to show we have covered our arses when the next SFO comes in. The task has become impossible and meanwhile the new PQiP's fill up the desks that the experienced staff have vacated when they implode and go off with stress. 

I have never felt so exhausted in the job, I was even hoping I might get thumped the other day by an angry 'pop', ridiculous term, as I could at least have taken a few weeks off. Can't see me lasting too much longer at this rate. Used to love the job and spent most of the day seeing the punters, doing home visits, proper prison visits, going to various meetings and a bit of computer time but now it's become a sedentary desk job interspersed with trying to pretend I can actually do RAR days and supervise people in the 10 to 20% time that's left over! How can that be right? The idea that some PO's can manage caseloads of 60 or 70 is frankly ridiculous. We have very little admin help and the time it takes to negotiate all the bureaucracy is ridiculous. 

Management solution to coping with the crisis is to pile even more pressure on us. It's frankly ridiculous. PO's need more status and far more support. Start respecting us, listen to us and do what we say will work, bottom up and not top down. I have no respect for the ACO's that hide away pumping out more bureaucracy. They should have a few cases allocated to them so they can see the reality and how much time supervision of just one case can take up. Give all the ACO's and SPO's a couple of token cases and watch the colour drain from their faces, especially the SPO's who moan that they are not earning much more than a PO! Do they think their job is any harder? 

This is a bloody tough job, you have to be incredibly resilient to cope, yet maintain compassion. Sadly that compassion is lacking in the service as a whole. We are treated like robots and when we crack we will be shoved out into the junk yard because the service thinks the new PQiP's will be more malleable. Sadly they will likely use the service as a stepping stone and move on when they realise the dream job they were sold was a lie.

Report Highlights Structural Failings

Press release issued today:-

Independent serious further offence review of Damien Bendall

Background

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

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

Statement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--oo00oo--

Extracts from the full report:-

1. Foreword 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

5. Executive summary 

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

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

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

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

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

Process for recommending curfew requirements 

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

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

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

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

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

Child safeguarding 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic abuse 

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

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

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

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

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

Fast delivery report 

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

Senior probation officer workload 

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

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

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

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

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

Professional qualification in probation and probation services officer training and oversight

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

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

6. Recommendations 

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

Court work and curfew requirements 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child safeguarding 

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

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

Risk management plans 

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

Training and support 

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

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

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

Allocation practice 

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

Oversight of SPOs 

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

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

Ministry of Justice should: 

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

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

Houston, We Have a Problem.

Regular readers will be very familiar with the notion that this blog regularly highlights relevant research and articles from various professional journals with the intention of bringing them to a wider audience. I'm happy to say that this practice has developed over the years and I believe helps stimulate discussion and debate. 

When publishing extracts from the research into the role of SPOs, I must admit I was somewhat surprised that it should re-ignite such an outburst of pent-up feeling and largely negative testimony from contributors. Of course I should have known because for some time the blog has been charting what seems an inexorable decline and dysfunctionality, somewhat speeded-up since reunification. It strikes me that things are now so bad that I've been tempted to pose the notion that the whole endeavour is becoming toxic. 

But an even bigger surprise has been the reaction on Twitter, much of it seemingly to deny the validity of much anonymous testimony - no attempt to engage with it, just deny it. But then that's the official MoJ/HMPPS civil service mindset all along isn't it? Amongst everything else, we clearly have a disconnect. Anyway, from Twitter:-

"Lots of SPO bashing on here over last few days. We're never going to get through this difficult period if we start turning on one another. Let's get back to being a supportive community & sharing ideas etc - that's always been the #Probation twitter I've enjoyed."

"Strange how people sling negativity on Twitter. Love to see them say it out of the safety of their keyboard. I have only had positive experiences with my SPOs. IMO, the entire structure needs to change!" 

"Me too, before becoming an SPO myself, I think I had about 6-7 different SPOs throughout the years. All very different, some I got on better with but all of them were decent, hard working and supportive."

"Noticed negative SPO comments on here. My PQiP SPO is amazing. She is thoughtful, protective of my role and really listens to my perspective. She always makes time for me, even when I can tell she hasn’t always got that time. Although, I accept that not all SPOs are the same."

"I don’t doubt any SPO isn’t passionate and wanting to support their team-I’ve had some pretty amazing SPOs and unfortunately some not so amazing. Probation in general is difficult at the mo but those who have a different, negative experience shouldn’t be overlooked too."

"My PQiP SPO has been fantastic, gutted she’s leaving but excited to gain different knowledge from our new SPO. Haven’t had much experience with the other SPO’s in office but they have all been nothing but friendly and approachable. It can’t be any easy job!!"

"I’ve seen some negative posts recently, I’ve only had the pleasure of working with passionate and supportive SPOs that drive good quality practice and support the Offender Managers. They do a hard role…"

"Our article on the emotional labour of SPOs has resulted in a lot of negativity towards SPOs - this was never our intention. I’ve come across great SPOs, and less great ones. All organisations have difficulties and problems; SPOs aren’t responsible for those we see in probation." (Jake Phillips)

"I guess I'm partly responsible, but I think it's pretty clear to me that it's symptomatic of widespread malaise within the organisation, something which senior management and policy makers seem to refuse to acknowledge. Surely there needs to be some serious internal reflection." (Jim Brown)

"Yes, agree that the response is symptomatic of wider problems/malaise." (Jake Phillips)

"It’s funny as those at the top with the ability to make change seem to ignore it and just want to load staff with more pointless tasks."

"So difficult trying to highlight issues without ppl blaming individuals. In my BBR research I tried to make clear this is issue of policy, not workforce. My report specifically points to similar HMIP inspections as evidence. I still heard rumblings this is likely 'localised'."

"I muted Jim Brown a while back. Anonymous complaints tweeted without context or reference just add nothing. Much as I loathe the mismanagement of the Probation Service, SPOs are not the problem."

"It’s not very nice is it, seems to be coming from one account determined to cast doom and gloom at every post they make. The SPO’s in my area are so supportive and are integral parts of the team. It’s a rough time atm but we are all in this together."

"The account referred to may well be mine, but of course is quoting largely from well-articulated commentary on the blog. It would be helpful if the issues raised were engaged with by all who still value what many still feel is a very worthwhile endeavour." (Jim Brown)

--oo00oo--

Over the years that I have read this important blog, I have found solace in the knowledge and wisdom of other contributors, and found comfort in the entries of other colleagues far and wide whose shared experience of the service resonated with my own throughout difficult times and through specific service issues. So thank you for the Blog Jim. The blog on SPO's is timely to me in many ways as I approach retirement at the end of this year. I would be lying if I said I was not counting the days.

It is timely also because last week, and in reflective mood, I felt an overarching sense of disappointment with myself. Had I failed in my role as a front line PO for all these years because I did not attain the role of an SPO? I gave myself a good talking to and so did my partner. The onlooker always sees more of the ball game. 

The focus of my professional life has always been to attain knowledge and experience. So I took on some extremely difficult but ultimately rewarding secondments instead of climbing the greasy pole. Some of these opportunities I don't think are open to colleagues today, but I write under correction for that. The downside of that is that, I missed opportunities to go for the SPO role in the community because of contractual requirements in secondment posts. It tended to be dead men's shoes so SPO roles did not come up that often, unlike now. I left the service to go elsewhere and when I returned the calamitous TR had happened. I returned to the service to find it unrecognisable. However, I am not going to rehearse all that here, but to say that I agree with most of what has been said on these posts for the SPO role. 

Not that long ago, I applied for one of the plethora of SPO posts which appealed to me. I had all the experience and knowledge they said they needed and the backing of my own SPO. Did I get it? Nope. Not even an interview. It became clear to me that my face no longer fit and they did not want lengthy service, experience, ability and competence, but inexperience, pliability and 'yes' people who would support those above them but had little idea of how to support the teams they would be expected to manage. 

I found out later that those chosen for the role were urged to apply. I admit I felt angry and disappointed and applied again for another SPO post and got an interview. I then withdrew my application because I knew at the 11th hour I did not want to be a part of the management structure as it is today. I don't know why the hell I applied other than to prove to myself that I could at least get an interview. I felt I was better placed in the PO role to use my experience and knowledge to help and mentor trainee staff in whichever role they were in and resign myself to that where I have felt appreciated and valued. 

In the area in which I work management have recently withdrawn the mentoring role and I am not sure if this is throughout the service. I find it a grave and short-sighted mistake. On-Line learning is one thing, but it does not teach you how to handle those whom you are entrusted to supervise or what to watch for in supervision and on home visits. Not a chance.

So to finish, over the years I have had some wonderful SPO's who knew more than I did and had my back which is all I require of a manager. While it was not perfect, I did think we had the best days before TR and most may disagree but that is my experience and my opinion. On the downside, I have had one or two truly dreadful SPO's whose damage is still legendary and should never have been within 40 miles of managing a team and who stand as a example of how not to do it. Most SPO's have to walk the difficult line between senior management. Most do it very well.

So there you have it.

*****

“SPOs are positioned in the organisation as ‘vital and loyal lynchpins’ … SPOs are required to use various emotional labour techniques to sanitise directives and persuade frontline staff to accept them.”

The only bit of the research I do agree with is that SPOs get very little support for doing a lot of work. We don’t earn much more than when we were POs either.

I’m an SPO with over a decade of probation management experience, much more as a main grade PO. I can tell you this research does not reflect my experience but some of the comments do. Yes, managers can be hand-picked and coached to be ‘yes people’ to senior grades. Many are happy to do so too, or know no better because it’s how they were managed as POs so know no different. Others can be flakey, collusive, bullies, incompetent or just sit with the door closed because they don’t care. I’d like to believe I tread a fine line between doing right by staff and pleasing the senior management. For me I’m lucky they immediate SPOs around me are similar and we have good teams. It’s not always an easy task and you really have to avoid the barbed wire on both sides of the fence.

I agree with 19:08’s 6 points and I’ve seen all those horror stories too. You learn to be like the wise owl.

There was an owl liv'd in an oak
The more he heard, the less he spoke
The less he spoke, the more he heard.

O, if men were all like that wise bird.

*****
pso, po, admin, cso, spo, aco... whatever role one has there are some basic skills & attributes that would make the workplace bearable:

1. Don't be a bully
2. Support those you work with
3. Respect each other as human beings
4. Respect each others' strengths & weaknesses
5. Communicate clearly with everyone
6. Be honest & have intergrity

For my money you could have 200 years' or 2 months' experience in the probation role, but... you have to demonstrate the above in spades to get my vote.

Sad to say my experience is that for the last thirty years or so such attributes have not been valued, that nepotism & self-serving power games have driven many key appointments and this is why - in my humble opinion - the probation service has been actively disassembled to align with NOMS/HMPPS & to become the shitshow we currently have to endure.

I was involved in personnel selection panels in the 2000's. I saw how candidates for a range of roles were 'filtered' to suit the agendas of certain senior managers, how selection matrices were doctored. I challenged those practices & paid the price many times over. I raised the issues with Board members, Trust members & NOMS. I was, in essence, told to shut up. No illegaity was proven (what a surprise) & I was subsequently ostracised, bullied, targetted & eventually manoeuvred out of the organisation.

I saw excellent candidates excluded. I saw excellent people in-post being hounded out of their roles to make way for the cuckoos. I saw excellent people being broken by the bullying of an organisation which was developing what I believed to be an unpleasant agenda of personal gain, & profit. Looking at the puddle of shit that lies before us in 2022, I don't think I was too far wrong in 2006.

*****

Ha, the recruitment process is you fill in an interview form then you attend an interview, it’s not that difficult. Too many times we hear of SPOs getting jobs we all knew they were tipped for, the ones already in favour with managers and senior managers. Interview processes are never objective when the interviewers know the applicants.

I agree the SPO job can be a difficult one. I’ve seen many a SPO brought down by nasty disgruntled practitioners within their teams, usually they’re the bullies and those that felt they should have got the job instead. Likewise I’ve seen many SPOs prosper because of the fabulous practitioners within their teams.

I do not agree with this research and I doubt the right calibre of SPOs were interviewed. SPOs are not the link between practitioners and the organisation, we all are, and any who think they are have become delusional on their grade status. If we relied on managers to interpret everything for us then we could not possibly claim to be professionals.

*****

I personally know at least half a dozen probably more front line Probation Officers that would not, in a million years, agree to becoming a SPO. They know full well the pressures from Senior Managers to confirm to the Command and Control rigid Civil Service way. I also know of a very few SPOs who somehow have managed to retain their integrity despite these pressures. My observation is that a whole swathe of potential SPO Managers has been cut out of Probation and this is so detrimental not least because these individuals are now at or near retirement. What a waste.

*****
And that’s the problem. Many become SPOs and take other manager roles because they don’t like the Probation Officer job, don’t like working with offenders or just aren’t very good at it. Instead of moving on they take managerial or specialist roles and then proceed to tell others how to do the job that they couldn’t do. These are not difficult positions for them to attain because their like-minded manager friends sit on their interview panels. There’re too many managers that are so past their sell by date they should not be advising others, yet they hang on to the job until retirement. There’re too many others that have been in the job such a short time they don’t understand who they are let alone understand what probation is. They shouldn’t be left alone to manage probation staff, and I’d estimate there’s no more than 1-2 decent SPOs in each Probation region. You’d think this is all made up but it’s really not!

*****
Probation is toxic, I believe the JFDI culture from senior managers in Trust days pervades in senior managers still. Add the dead hand of the Civil Service with its dreadful HR process-is-all “we are here to support the managers not the staff” functions and the disconnect between front line practitioners and managers is explained. Staff working under workloads they can never successfully manage leads to behaviour issues too. The very worst behaviour I have experienced has been between staff, not from the clients/ service users/ offenders/ People on Probation. Face the truth, the service is no longer aligned to the values those of us who cling to this blog believe it should be.

*****
I think Interim SPOs are a problem if they're being promoted within the PDU they've already been a PO at. There's a glaring conflict of interest. A tendency to support wholesale (often poor) behaviour of other POs that they've had existing relationships with, without critically thinking and encouraging bias and not best practice. They also won't criticise more senior SPOs. Again, this creates a conflict of interest and a culture where things are swept under the carpet or other POs who don't have the existing relationship with said interim SPO feeling undermined and fobbed off. You're not supposed to have bias - unconscious or not - as a PO dealing with POPs, but it seems fair game for this to occur between PO and SPO. 

Depending on their emotional intelligence and ego (or lack of the former, exaggerated in the latter) many of them let the power go to their head or use new staff or POs they don't have a relationship with as examples to use to exemplify their competency in the role to their bosses, exploiting newness or the power dynamic. Again, this is not good for the PO, PQIP, NQO who has been singled out. Yes, this happens. It's not human nature. It's a choice. But it's condoned through the dreadfully tedious and often toxic world of office politics, despite rules and safeguards and ratified literature to prevent it happening.

*****

My biggest issue is SPO’s are given, by all accounts, very little training and are not aware of current case management practice which makes it very difficult to be managed by them. I have now got to the point whereby every new SPO appointment made is not a surprise and I sit there in despair as you know full well they will not be able to cope or their previous practice is poor. The amount of SPOs promoted whose case management I’ve had to clear up is ridiculous. It’s this in my opinion that makes it difficult to foster effective working relationships between SPOs and their team.

*****
The training for POs isn't up to much either and is glaringly inconsistent, as are offices: many poorly run with outmoded operational agreements that aren't efficient or supportive of new staff. Choose your PDU very very wisely. Most are very badly run, even though it's within the gift of the 'team' (yawn) to work together and not to single out or discriminate against others. I've seen better team work in a silo of separate offices. In my experience, Inclusion is an aspiration, not a right or the natural order of things. Oh, and don't be a hard worker - you'll be exploited for all you're worth, whilst others' are picking scabs off you to cut corners so you do more of their work. The cliched "Welcome to Probation" refrain reared its head the other week. I've been in Probation 3 years. Ever the dim-witted condescension and foolishness that pervades the thinking of singular ambitious half-wits only too happy to use you to advance their career. Three years is a long welcome. Twit!

*****

I think many on Twitter are those in past or present management and specialist roles, or are management-pleasers. They will obviously say how great probation is when all the reports say it is not. The rest of us comment anonymously on this blog as if we revealed ourselves we’d have some difficulty in the morning.