End of An Era

We need to get probation out of HMPPS and the civil service. Napo mailing yesterday:-

Today is a day for reflection, particularly for our members who were working in the Divisional Sex Offender Units, as today, technically these units no longer exist. It is an end of an era for the Probation Service, which has historically prided itself on being an evidence based and research driven organisation, and these teams were held in high regard by sentencers, police, social services and by sentence management colleagues for the knowledge and insight they bought in working with people who have committed sexual offences. 

No reason has been given for the removal of these experienced teams, other than "career progression" for those without a probation qualification and who will now be expected to deliver Horizon and New Me Strengths (for those with intellectual disabilities), in the main without the experience and same level of training as those gone before and without an increase in pay, whilst moving into the rollout of Building Choices, which will be one programme whatever the offence may be.

Napo and our sister unions, along with our members (THANK YOU), have worked hard over the last 4 years to raise the concerns for public safety by removing the divisional sex offender units, but sadly the wider HMPPS has refused to hear these. Be assured though, we are still continuing to challenge this in every way we can.

Napo wish to acknowledge our members in those lost units and their commitment to the work to give those convicted of sexual offences an opportunity to address their reasons for making those choices to ensure no more victims going forward, their commitment to ending violence against women and children, their commitment to supporting colleagues in sentence management and overall their commitment to keeping the public safe.

Thank you for your service, we value and respect you.

A Very Bad Idea

Regular readers will recall that one unfortunate casualty of Rishi Sunak having a hissy fit and calling a very unexpected general election was the last minute cancellation of a BBC Newsnight investigation into the mess HMPPS was making of sex offender programmes.

Sadly, but very conveniently for HMPPS, this film will never see the light of day due to the BBC culling all the investigative journalists from Newsnight and reducing the programme to 30 rather than 45 minutes. Fortunately, I see the subject gets a thorough airing in this piece published yesterday by ByLine Times:-

Ministry of Justice Downgrading of Sex Offender Rehabilitation Will Have ‘Catastrophic Effect’ on Public Safety, Union Warns

The salaries of specialist probation officers who manage sex offenders are being cut – and 77% say they plan to leave the job.

New plans to cut the salaries of specialist probation officers who manage the risk of sex offenders could have a “catastrophic” effect on public safety, unions warn.

Sex offenders in England and Wales are often required to take part in Horizon, a programme designed to reduce their risk of reoffending. Around 1 in 10 sex offenders go on to commit a similar crime.

The programme is facilitated by specialised officers, many of whom have decades of experience working with sex offenders, but the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has decided the role will drop from band 4 to band 3 for new recruits from 1 August 2024, which will result in a pay cut of up to £10,000.

Facilitators will no longer be required to be qualified probation officers, which comes with two years’ training, including risk management and risk assessment.

Around 93% of Horizon facilitators think the public will be at increased risk following these changes, according to an internal survey of members of the union Napo seen by Byline Times.

These changes are like “putting the teaching assistants in charge of the school,” says Laura, a specialist probation officer with experience facilitating and managing these programmes. Laura, (not her real name) added that it takes a lot of experience to be able to idenitfy the signs that someone may reoffend.

“People with 10 to 20 years’ experience are really good at picking up on the signs when someone is becoming risky,” the specialist probation officer says. “And we have a degree-level qualification in managing risk."

“My concern is that we’ll lose these experienced staff who are good at identifying risk, and I can think of a number of situations where staff running these programmes have identified risk that has led to us finding out that men have been having contact with children they shouldn’t have been, which has led to them being recalled to prison.”

Facilitators who are currently at band 4 will have their pay frozen for three years, then it will drop to band 3, and their job roles will encompass a broader range of programmes.

The decision has caused a “serious loss of trust” among facilitators, says Max (not his real name), a probation officer with over a decade’s experience of facilitating sex offender programmes. “A lot of people around me, with a lot of experience, are thinking about leaving the service,” he says.

According to NAPO’s survey, 77% of specialist probation officers say they will leave their team. This will leave inexperienced staff to do the work, says Napo’s Tania Bassett. 

“Inexperienced staff will need to be trained in Horizon, which will take time, and in some cases there is no training provision,” she told Byline Times. "As a result, we expect large parts of the country to be left unable to deliver any sex offender work for quite a few months."

“Existing groups are likely to be withdrawn as there won’t be any staff left to complete them. Evidence shows that, where a programme is only partially completed, risk of offenders increases.”

Probation officers that manage people on probation are supported by divisional sex offender units, which consist of specialist probation staff that deliver Horizon. They’re trained to conduct thorough risk assessments and sentence management plans for sex offenders, and provide tailored interventions.

“A lot of probation officers with caseloads lack the confidence of how to work with people with sexual convictions, and look to us for advice,” says Max. 

The new plans will eliminate this oversight across the country, says Rebecca (not her real name), a senior probation officer, who declined to provide her name. “There will be a two-tier workforce that will be watered down over time because experienced staff have left and continue to do so. They don’t want to go back into the field doing case management and overseeing an extremely high caseload, which holds a significant level of accountability. We’re walking into a furnace.”

This move could have a “catastrophic” effect on public safety, says Unison, one of the UK’s largest trade unions.

“With the probation service suffering from an acute workload and staffing crisis, it’s all the more important to hold on to experienced employees to supervise complex cases effectively,” says Ben Priestley, the union’s national officer for police and probation. "Doing away with specialist units with expertise in dealing with sex offenders will lead to a significant loss of skilled staff with the necessary experience. Communities will be left without the protection they deserve and require."

The agenda around punishing sex offenders seems to focus on increasing sentences, rather than protecting those at risk of being targeted by sex offenders, says Harriet Wistrich, founder and director of the Centre for Women’s Justice.

Wistrich, a solicitor who acted for some of the victims of John Worboys, known as the ‘black cab rapist’, told Byline Times: “Unless you lock everyone up forever, people will come up of prison, usually on license, and this is a critical time. If they’re regarded low enough in risk, that risk should be very carefully monitored by probation, which requires particular skills and experience.

“Sex offending is a specific type offending. It’s quite different from a lot of other offending because it seems many sex offenders are quite able to present themselves in ways that won’t necessarily make them appear to be a risk to those who aren’t very skilled at identifying and understanding that risk and manipulation,” she says.

There are also plans to replace Horizon, which is designed specifically for those with sexual convictions, with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ course, Next Generation of Accredited Programmes.

Simon (not his real name) completed Horizon while on probation after serving time for a sexual offence and credits it with changing his life. “Getting caught helped me see there were things I needed to address to understand why I did what I did, and I’m a better person now,” he says. “Horizon provides an understanding that we’re all built differently, and it takes a trigger to send you over the edge.”

Simon praises the facilitators, saying they were “excellent” and know how to “treat people”. “If one of us stepped out of line, they were soon told,” he told Byline Times. “You could see their experience in how they spoke to you. Having that experience was vital.”

The move should be a concern to the public, says George Georgiou, GMB’s national officer.

“The work undertaken with people who have committed sexual offences is – and has been for decades – specialised,” he says. “The way people offend and the theories and approaches to addressing this behaviour varies by offence type. “Evidence shows the effective treatment of people who have committed offences of a sexual nature does reduce the risk of their reoffending. GMB is concerned removing specialist workers leaves the public at risk of increased reoffending.”

Daniel, (not his real name) was sexually abused by a teacher when he was 13.

The 55-year-old says he’s struggled with feelings of guilt for not going to the police about his abuser, who went on to sexually abuse other children. “It’s so vital that the right infrastructure is in place to support and rehabilitate people so they don’t reoffend,” he says.

A Probation Service spokesperson told Byline Times that sex offenders are “supervised by qualified probation officers and the Horizon behaviour change programme they undertake will continue to be delivered by appropriately trained staff. These changes will ensure these programmes are delivered consistently across the country to reduce the risk of reoffending.”

Jessica Bradley

Guest Blog 99

Future victims and a denial of cost cutting

Programmes is in a mess. Absolute turmoil, staff in meltdown, off sick or leaving in their droves nationally. Yet when we talk to our OM colleagues we are either met with a shrug, or indifference. Well, good luck, as shit rolls downwards.

Due to a job evaluation that has taken over two years the highly qualified band 4 officers who deliver sex offender programmes are being ‘re-banded’ to Band 3. Many have decades of experience with this cohort, imparting knowledge and risk assessments to OM colleagues and the courts.

Equally highly qualified Band 3 PSOs (many of whom are educated to Masters level) are taking on the sex offender group work. This is not the job they signed up for, and numerous have the attitude of ‘why should we, for ten grand less?’ Considering the Band 3 has such a low starting salary its now possible to be paid more in an admin level job in local authorities and councils. Now we value admin colleagues but lets face it the stress of dealing with DV perpetrators or those who offend sexually is markedly lower in admin than a PSO in programmes.

Recent VLO banding to Band 4 was of course welcome, but this is even more a kick in the teeth to PSO’s in Programmes who will often spend in excess of over 70 hours face to face with people on probation (BBR totals around 70 hours face to face work). The only PSOs who deal face to face with High Risk sexual and domestically violent offenders in the service are now wondering should they jump ship into Band 4 VLO positions, or head into a Domestic Abuse Safety Officer (DASO) role? But, hang on – they can’t because all band 4 roles are ringfenced for the Band 4 programmes officers being transferred in. Band 3 PSOs are facing a future as Intervention Facilitators, unable to access any other PSO roles in courts, or sentence mangers as they will be second class employees. They will be seen as external candidates for the PQiP route, closing every door internally. All TM roles are being allocated to the Band 4 probation officers being thrown out of the sex offender programmes. Therefore the TM training pathway and interview process for BBR and TSP is being watered down, resulting in the TM’s of the future never having delivered these programmes before telling those highly experienced BBR facilitators how to do their job.

The JES appeal is being appealed by NAPO as it was widely inaccurate and yet radio silence from the Unions to the wider probation service.

Many suspect the handling of this process is reminiscent of a nicely packaged up Interventions service heading for the private sector. Sold off twice – charming. Wonder how the public would react if they knew that highly specialist teams dealing with this cohort are being disbanded ready for another Grayling moment?

In the meantime in many regions of England and Wales there are no programmes being run for sex offenders, Band 3 teams cut in half, hampered in their attempts to offer domestic violence rehabilitation work, long waiting lists building up. What a shambles, again.

Anon

An Appeal

A freelance journalist is working on a story about the MoJ's plans to disband SPOs working in specialist sex offender units, and replace Horizon and iHorizon with the one-size-fits-all Next Generation Accredited Programmes. She has assurance from experts outside the MoJ that the plans are definitely going ahead, but the official MoJ line is that there are no definite plans in the immediate future. If anyone can come forward to help, with the assurance of full anonymity if needed, you can reach her at hijessicaebradley@gmail.com

Addendum

Also - if anyone has any documentation showing that HMPPS forbids contracted researchers from talking to the media or being critical of HMPPS - she'd be very keen to hear from you.

--oo00oo--

Postscript

Can Probation Keep Us Safe?

BBC 1 Panorama May 23rd 9.00pm

When dangerous criminals leave prison, the Probation Service should monitor them and keep the public safe. But is it up to the job? As convicted criminals across England and Wales are released from prison early to tackle chronic overcrowding, Panorama investigates the Probation Service and asks if it's doing enough to manage high-risk prisoners. Serving probation officers warn that their caseloads are putting public safety at risk, and families whose loved ones have been murdered by convicted criminals on probation ask why the system failed them.

Lets Look At Napo

It's been some time since I've said much about Napo and that's for a variety of reasons. I didn't attend the AGM and conference and somewhat unusually, I didn't have a lot to say about the motions up for debate because to me the absolutely key issue was a campaign to get probation out of the clutches of HMPPS command and control and the dead hand of the civil service. So where did that feature on the list of motions? Nowhere, apart from Wales where Napo Cymru got their act together as I outlined here. 

Lets remind ourselves of what the 2022 AGM produced for the current years Operational Plan:-

National Executive 

• Fight for our professional integrity and our professional status by working with other Criminal Justice partners and unions to maintain our professional standards in Courts; fight the changes to the Parole process and fight to reinstate our ability to make recommendations; support staff involved in open parole hearings; continue to fight Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) especially the line management of probation staff by prisons; and campaign to take us out of the Civil Service in order to regain our independent professional status (Resolution 7)

• Napo will redouble our demands for Probation to be taken out of the civil service, and unshackled from the Prison Service. Napo members will write to their MPs making this position clear. The NEC will draft a suggested briefing note and letter, and Napo will engage in a press and communications exercise, responding to each of the inevitable future “poor” and “needs improvement” inspection report making this position clear (Resolution 9)

Pretty feisty stuff and clear cut. Fast forward to AGM 2023 and had it not been for Napo Cymru putting forward a spirited motion making the case for probation in Wales being fully devolved, the absolutely key issue of divorce from HMPPS wouldn't even have been discussed at all at Nottingham! 

Thank goodness for the the valiant efforts of Napo Cymru and their unstinting campaigning and assiduous political lobbying. I would venture to suggest that Napo England has much to learn from their efforts and should they bear fruit post the general election and a new UK Labour Administration, probation England is going to look pretty stupid as a totally isolated example of how not to do it. Sadly, Napo will look even more irrelevant than many feel it has already become. One can only speculate how the union is regarded by the MoJ and the HMPPS command and controllers! . 

So, this is what the new 2024 Operational Plan has to say:-

OBJECTIVE 3: CAMPAIGNING AND COMMUNICATING

Maintaining Napo’s high profile in successfully campaigning, promoting and communicating Napo’s policies and values. Organise the re-instatement of a national, amalgamated public Probation service and keep Cafcass as a public service, both with sufficient resources to guarantee jobs and service delivery. To work with unions, relevant organisations, MPs, Assembly Members, peers, parliamentary groups and others as appropriate in relation to wider public service campaigns.

• Actively, urgently and persistently campaign for the devolution of Probation in Wales, focussing these efforts on the Westminster Labour Party, demanding that the devolution of Wales Probation is included in the UK Labour manifesto for the next General Election (Resolution 19)

National Executive Committee 

• Raise awareness of the impact of staff shortages on serious further offences, highlighting this is increasingly through unsafe working practices and negotiate with the employer the circumstances in which Corporate Responsibility will be applied (Resolution 5).
• Call on the MOJ and government to put immediate measures in place to alleviate dangerously high workloads and address recruitment and retention with a decent pay rise (Resolution 6)
• Review recommendations in respect of possible industrial action when reports are received from Officers and Officials in respect of the formal One HMPPS dispute; the recent call from the outgoing HM Inspector of Probation for an independent enquiry into the state of Probation; the Lord Chancellor’s announcement of the early Release scheme and the removal of Divisional Sex Offender Units, which is detrimental to the public protection, the wellbeing of case managers and the communities we serve (Resolution 7)

Pretty feeble and mealy-mouthed I would venture to suggest. But the last reference provides a good example of why probation needs to be out of HMPPS completely. Lets look at what the position is regarding Divisional Sex Offender Units and indeed the MoJ/HMPPS track record on this important and key area of probation work. We've had the scrapping of the much maligned Sex Offender accredited programme; removal of funding for Circles UK; intended scrapping of the DSOU's; no sign of much encouragement of initiatives such as the Safer Living Centre in Nottingham, and then I spotted this from a notice of a forthcoming NOTA training event in Leeds:-

"This training is not available to staff of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service who use their own programmes and toolkits."

Now NOTA are an extremely well respected outfit that have been around a long time in the field of work with sex offenders:- 

NOTA’s Charitable Objectives are to advance education for the benefit of the public, amongst members of the profession or persons working with or providing services for people who have committed sexual abuse or others having a legitimate professional interest in the field, and to promote or assist in promoting research into the skills associated with the professions who work with or provide services for people who have committed sexual abuse and into the efficiency of existing skills and practices, and to disseminate the useful results of such research for the benefit of the public.

Why on earth are probation staff forbidden from attending? In the past we were encouraged to join NOTA and attend events. Methinks it's a perfect example of control freakery from HMPPS, an organisation that is rapidly demonstrating it is unfit for purpose.

Local v Central

In order to try and keep the discussion going, I think it helps to highlight reflective contributions, such as this from earlier this morning:-

Over the years I have seen officers struggle to communicate with those they supervise and take the upward route….once promoted they become (at least in their eyes) super officers who were promoted on the basis of their excellence and seek to disgorge their ‘experience’ to those they left behind, confident that their limited skill set is the way. This group have moved now into the higher echelons of probation and as such we have this disconnect between how they think we should work and the reality. 

The reality is that we work with a socially damaged group who seek to return to what they know and are comfortable with and breaking or even impeding that return is difficult and is only achieved incrementally and usually involves failure along the way. I’ve worked and mentored with some fantastic young recruits who have a natural compassion which I see eroded from them slowly but surely by the cold hand of central control.

Regional differences exist yet probations strength is local…not central and the constant launches and re launches are all centrally driven….OMIC [Offender Management in Custody] is an idea that has struggled from the start, One HMPpS will give control to exactly the wrong group…if we are looking at a redesign, local PDUs, loosely linked to other local areas with a local committee of volunteers providing a steer…..will it come to pass? Not a chance as it would take power and control from the top…..I once wrote a PSR on an RSO [Registered Sex Offender], supervised him throughout his sentence and managed him in the community for six years…….not reoffended to date and still sends me a Christmas card…..it worked for him and it was as local as it could have been………

Latest From Napo 232

Here we have selected quotes from the Napo mailout sent to all members yesterday:-

TRADE UNIONS OPPOSE REFORM OF PROGRAMMES DELIVERY

Our members will be aware that the joint Probation Service trade unions (TUs) have now been involved in negotiations about the future of offending behaviour programme delivery for almost a year. Despite our best efforts, we are no closer to agreement with the employer’s proposals.

We are aware that the employer has stated that there have been over 30 hours of consultation on the subject, although the TUs would question how meaningful this was. We have continued to emphasise our concerns over how the proposals will negatively impact the management of the risk of harm to the public, in addition to looking after the interests of our members. Below is an update on the issues the TUs have raised with the employer.

WHY A SINGLE FACILITATOR JOB DESCRIPTION WILL BE BAD NEWS

The aim of the employer is to replace all current facilitator job descriptions (JD) at band 3 and band 4 with one JD which may end up being evaluated at pay band 3. The TUs believe that the JD should differ between general offending behaviour programmes (GOBP) staff, such as those who deliver TSP, and those who deliver work with men who commit sexual offences (MCSO) and domestic abuse (DA).

Consultancy, delivery of non-accredited one-to-one work, guidance to sentence management and provision of Learning and Development support to Sentence Management staff will differ with risk levels and complexity. Those subject to conditions to complete a general Offender Behaviour Programme (OBP) are not likely to require significant consultancy, guidance or Learning and Development support

The TUs feel that the creation of two facilitator roles at Band 3 and Band 4 better represents the work of our members. Work with more complex and high-risk groups (DA and MCSO) justifies differing salary bands to other types of Offending Behaviour Programme (OBP) facilitator staff.

DAMAGING TO CAREER PROGRESSION

Under the current proposals, the only career development pathway for facilitators will be to leave facilitation. Our proposals for Band 3 and Band 4 facilitator roles would offer greater flexibility in terms of career progression that would support remaining in facilitation.

The TUs have continued to emphasise the need for the Probation Service to develop a career progression model whereby people new into the service deliver structured interventions and TSP, allowing time to develop their knowledge, experience and skill before they progress to deliver Building Better Relationships (BBR) and programmes for those convicted of sexual offences, if they choose to do so.

MORE INFORMATION NEEDED

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:

• The justification for a single facilitator job description
• The pay band at which a single facilitator role will be paid? If the outcome of the job evaluation process puts the role at Band 3, our pay band 4 members face losing up to £11,000 per annum, if they want to continue to deliver programmes. This includes some former CRC facilitators.
• The arrangements for Band 4 members currently working in Interventions to return to sentence management. These members may have been out of sentence management for many years. As a minimum, these members, would require a full package of training and a gradual acquisition of a full case load.
• Whether non-qualified Band 4 facilitators who choose to leave Interventions would be offered pay protection if they were to return to a Band 3 PSO role.
• The consequences for new staff of failing Core Skills or programme specific training

DEDICATED SEX OFFENDER UNITS (DSOU) TO BE DISBANDED

Under the current proposals the employer intends for all facilitators to deliver all accredited programmes and structured interventions. This will result in existing DSOUs being disbanded, resulting in the loss of the accumulated expertise and knowledge held by our members in these teams and placing the public at greater risk of serious harm.

The TUs have been clear that keeping these teams would not only mean keeping current expertise in work with men who commit sexual offences but also allow for the development of expertise and knowledge in work with men who commit DA offences and engage in sexually abusive behaviour.

This would provide an opportunity to enhance our work with this group to improve risk management and public safety. The TUs continue to be clear that DSOUs should be expanded to incorporate those most experienced facilitators in the delivery of domestic abuse programmes to provide the same level of consultancy and support to sentence management and stakeholders that members in existing DSOUs provide.

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:

• What will be asked of members, who, for whatever reason, don’t wish to work with those who commit domestic abuse offences or are convicted of sexual offences?
• What will be asked of members who deliver structured interventions and don’t wish to deliver accredited programmes?

TREATMENT MANAGERS & PROGRAMME MANAGERS

Under the employer’s proposals, the TUs believe it is unlikely that Treatment Managers will have the capacity to provide current levels of professional support and guidance to probation practitioners and relevant stakeholders. This would be an increased risk at a time when the Probation Service has a large and increasing number of inexperienced probation practitioners and managers. It is clear that there are currently no substantive plans in place to ensure that competent clinical advice or support to probation practitioners or stake holders is in place.

The TUs are concerned that Treatment Managers may be expected to oversee programmes of which they have no experience rather than delivering twice before taking up the role. The TUs have pointed out that this would clearly result in negative consequences for the standard of programme delivery and lead to a reduction in the quality of risk management, putting the public at increased risk of harm.

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:

• The employer’s lack of response to issues raised around the potential consequences of staff inexperience and its implication for risk management, in the face of recent SFO reports and HMIP inspections.

COST!

The plans for Interventions will result in significant cost, in addition to the costs of developing a new programme. The TUs believe this money could be better invested in increasing facilitator numbers for existing programmes.

A SINGLE ACCREDITED OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAMME?

The employer’s current plans are to replace all current accredited programmes with a single programme for all offenders. The information so far provided by the employer does not, in the TUs’ opinion, justify the plans put forward and indicates no significant work on a new programme has yet taken place.

An evaluation of a single programme approach used in Canada which has been seen by the TUs did not yield positive results. The TUs continue to have significant concerns in relation to:

• The future of the Domestic Abuse Safety Officer role should BBR be replaced with a single programme
• How Programme Managers will ensure the safety of our members and people on probation if DA perpetrators and MCSO are included in the same group
• How Programme Managers will be able to ensure there are no victims of DA or sexual offences in groups
• How it will be possible to facilitate and ensure the engagement of group members in large groups
• How sexual deviance will be tackled as part of a single OBP, as this is one of the biggest risk indicators

WHAT NEXT?

The unions are opposed to the HMPPS proposals for Programmes because we believe that they will reduce public protection at a time when tackling violence against women and girls is finally getting the attention and resources it deserves in other government departments. HMPPS is trying to force generic job descriptions onto complex work areas in order to save money in much the same way as the NPS did at the time of E3. It did not work then, and it will not work now.

So, we will continue to campaign against these dangerous changes both within and outside HMPPS.

--oo00oo--

Excerpts from Napo's formal response to Parole changes

The following are excerpts from Napo’s formal initial response as a trade union, dated the 14th of July, to the information we were provided with at that time by HMPPS on the changes made by the Secretary of State for Justice to the parole process.

“It’s outrageous that this fundamental change was introduced without any meaningful consultation or notice in advance of the Statutory Instrument…

…It’s clear that no current practitioners or relevant stakeholders have been consulted in advance on what is in effect a dangerously inept political ‘power grab’. This demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend the severe consequences of the huge mistake being made by doing so…

…Our concern is that this is a decision which is wholly politically motivated, made in response to a tiny proportion of individual cases which have received significant national publicity. Unfortunately, experience tells us that this never makes for considered or effective decision making in the criminal justice system…

…In thousands of instances every year no recommendation of any sort will be made to the Parole Board, with experienced, trusted experts such as Probation staff being actively prohibited from doing so by the Secretary of State. This significantly increases the risk to the public, and will damage their confidence in the criminal justice system…

…So far there has been no consultation with the recognised experts in this area of practice – the staff currently writing these reports and attending Oral Hearings. In fact, the Secretary of State has – potentially deliberately – avoided any such process of engagement. How can the recognised trade unions and their members have any confidence that this guidance will be fit for purpose, especially given the mass of contradictions and flaws inherent in this plan and the extremely limited time available for its production?...”

We’ve taken the unusual step of including these excerpts in this communication following this week’s judgement of the High Court on cases related to the changes imposed by the Secretary of State for Justice in July 2022 – www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bailey-and-Morris-judgment.pdf

To be in the position of having received such a damning indictment on their behaviour and judgement, has resulted in HMPPS carrying out the Minister’s stated aims in a manner that was described in the judgement as “unlawful” in multiple respects.

While we are aware of the possibility the Secretary of State may appeal this judgement – and given lack of any apparent judgement and sense of decency this remains entirely likely – it is difficult to see how they can recover from abject defeat in Court.

As detailed in previous communications over the months since these changes were announced Napo has consistently taken the fight to HMPPS on behalf of its members on this matter at every opportunity possible in the months since these changes were announced. We have made repeated representations about the dire effects that these changes would clearly cause, both for our members and the wider criminal justice system, then unceasingly brought these to the employer’s attention as often as we were able to after their implementation. In addition to this we have worked with others interested parties – such as in the Houses of Parliament, charitable organisations involved or the legal representatives of the individuals party to the Court case above – to attempt to overturn these changes at the earliest opportunity. In doing this we are grateful to the members who have shared their experiences and concerns with us to enable Napo to better represent all our members and to defend the importance of our professional judgement.

Napo believe this stands as the most recent example to be added to the increasingly long list of instances when HMPPS should have listened to its workers, and their trade union representatives, to avoid making disastrous decisions. Members can be assured we will cite this in the future in our contacts with HMPPS in relation to our reasoned, critical opposition to, for example, the proposed changes to programmes as well as ‘One HMPPS’.

A Good Thing

I'm going to stick my neck out here and state that some things in life fall clearly into a category that most informed people would be content to label 'a good thing'. Probation used to be one of them, but sadly no longer as it approaches full command and control of HMPPS next month. On the other hand 'Circles' clearly does and I notice they've just published a final report. Readers will recall that HMPPS disgracefully pulled the funding of this imaginative and innovative way of working in 2018. (Charts and diagrams omitted here).      

Celebrating the Completing the Circle Project: widening access to Circles for people convicted of sexual offences 

Circles UK recently hosted an on-line seminar to celebrate the successes of the ‘Completing the Circle’ project and the lessons arising from it. The ‘Completing the Circle’ project was an ambitious four-year programme which sought to end the ‘postcode lottery’ of access to the community safety and rehabilitative benefits of Circles. 

What are Circles (‘Circles of Support and Accountability’)? 

Circles UK’s vision is of ‘no more victims’. Its mission is to enhance public safety by working with individuals who have sexually abused others, and are at risk of doing so again, to self-manage inappropriate thoughts and behaviours, reintegrate safely into society, and lead responsible lives. 

The Circles model (also known as Circles of Support and Accountability) is a complementary approach which harnesses the strengths and resources of local people to augment the statutory risk management of sexual harm causers in the community. In the Circles model the abuser becomes the ‘Core Member’ of an ‘inner Circle’ made up of 4-6 professionally trained and supervised Volunteers. The Circle seeks to prevent further sexual abuse by reducing stigma and social isolation; factors known to be strongly associated with sexual recidivism. The Circle focuses on a person’s ‘positives’ and ‘strengths’ and seeks to support him/her to access safe social outlets and opportunities, avoid dangerous and enabling situations and behaviours and manage day to day challenges. In so doing the Circle serves to reduce the risk of reoffending associated with alienation and the attendant risk of harm to existing and potential victims. 

Circles UK was established in 2008 to set up and oversee organisations to deliver Circles in England and Wales. Organisations which run Circles must become members of Circles UK and operate within the requirements of a Code of Practice. These Circles ‘Providers’, as they are known, are also subject to biennial audits by Circles UK to ensure that quality and safety standards are maintained. There are currently nine Circles Providers working across England and Wales. 

Since 2008 over 900 Circles have run successfully with a known reoffending rate of less than 7%. 

What was the Completing the Circle Project? 

In 2015, the National Lottery Community Fund awarded over £2million to a consortium of Circle Providers, led by Circles UK. This consortium was given just 4 years to set up and run 188 new Circles in parts of England and Wales where they had not existed before. As the intention of the project was to ensure that communities in every part of the country would have access to Circles, the project was called ‘Completing the Circle, or ‘CtC’ for short. Circles delivery was expanded to five previously un-served parts of the country - Merseyside, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire, and London.

What were the main successes?

• All 188 Circles were established and completed in the parts of the country where no such service has been available before.

• 778 Volunteers were recruited, trained, and closely supervised to provide the 188 new Circles.

• In addition to many hours of mandatory core training, 291 Volunteers received additional supplemental training.

• 103 Volunteers were supported to achieve National Open College Network accredited certification.

• These Volunteers gave 35,976 hours of their time to help reduce sexual harm within their communities and roughly the same amount of time travelling to and from Circle meetings and activities.

• The goal of helping sexual harm causers (Core Members in a Circle) to safely reintegrate into their communities was achieved. An independent evaluation showed that dynamic risk factors reduced and ‘protective’ factors across a range of variables, including employment, purposeful activities and hobbies, stable emotional relationships, and emotional wellbeing, improved.

Areas in England and Wales where Circles were successfully established due to the Completing the Circle project:

Lancashire 13 Circles

Notts/Derby 24 Circles

Merseyside 25 Circles

Lincolnshire 13 Circles

Northants 19 Circles

London 94 Circles

Volunteer hours 35,976

How were these results achieved – a case study 

To illustrate some of the issues that had to be overcome to make the project such a success, the London roll out will be used as a case study. London was the largest of the geographical areas involved in the project. There are more registered sex offenders (RSOs) living in the capital city than in any other area of England and Wales, with recent Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures reporting 6,581 Registered Sex Offenders being managed under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Even though the benefits of adding Circles to the existing range of public protection measures in London were self-evident from the start and the project was welcomed by statutory and other-sector partners, establishing 94 new Circles from scratch without pre-existing infrastructures, partnership relationships or a volunteer recruitment strategy in place presented significant challenges. 

What were the main challenges and how were they overcome?

Establishing effective multi-agency collaboration and information sharing protocols across the entire London area was a complex task requiring the Circle Provider in London to engage with multiple agencies and service providers within each of the London boroughs. It was achieved through the creation of a multi-agency steering group which developed and agreed protocols and agreed a Memorandum of Understanding. This took time to negotiate but was eventually signed off by all the key partners.

Once the project was operational, attention turned to promotion and referrals. Partnership agencies wanted delivery to be rolled out ‘clockwise’ beginning in the south west boroughs, so Circle Coordinators attended regional Senior Management Board and Cluster Management Meetings and delivered presentations at individual Offender Management Units throughout this area. Referral enquiries were slow to materialise, however, and to keep the project on target the roll out strategy had to be re-negotiated, with the outcome that agreement was secured to allow referrals to come in city-wide.

Understandably, some of the Volunteers who had already been recruited and trained to work in the south west of London chose not to continue at this point. In response, a pan-London recruitment initiative was developed, urgently targeting universities, volunteer bureaus, retirement, and religious/belief groups etc. across all boroughs to find citizens willing and able to volunteer in the areas where referrals existed.

This solution, though productive, threw up a new set of demands. Matching Service Users, Volunteers and restricted staff resources across a larger area was exacting. Multiple Volunteer training events had to be organised and the travel and time demands upon both Volunteers and Coordinators grew. Staff workloads, which had originally been calculated based on a restricted geographical patch, also increased. Indeed, the decision to promote the project and recruit Volunteers from across the entire London area, though constructive, stretched the staff group significantly. Hard work and tenacity on their part carried things through. In addition, where funding allowed, extra staff were recruited.

As the project moved on it became evident that a high proportion of referrals were for individuals resettled in London from other areas of the country. Many of these people were unfamiliar with local services. Often, they struggled to meet expensive travel costs as well. Similar issues emerged for some of the London based students who chose to volunteer. Higher than anticipated levels of staff turnover among the referring agencies also occurred, which was found to impact on communication and pace. To address these issues a lot of additional time was given over to supporting and enabling participation and engagement. It was also spent nurturing and maintaining relationships with partnership colleagues.

A concerted recruitment drive and tenacious programme of awareness raising took place alongside these efforts. Circle Coordinators visited individual Probation offices, attended MOSOVO meetings and spoke at partnership meetings. They ran stalls at Volunteer recruitment fairs, gave presentations at universities and set up a scheme to encourage established Volunteers to recruit their friends. As a result of these efforts, by early 2018 target ‘catch up’ had largely been achieved and the project was on course to complete in full and on time.

Then, in March 2018, her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) announced that all probation funding for Circles would end in September 2018. This decision was unexpected. In the preceding 15 months Circles UK had engaged in detailed discussions with HMPPS officials to introduce a nationally commissioned contract, a process which built upon a longstanding relationship between the Circles network and the Ministry of Justice/Probation Service. Even though funding for the London Circles came from the National Lottery Fund (and required no direct funding from probation or other statutory agencies), confusion and uncertainty resulted among Probation senior managers and staff. The result was that many referrals were withdrawn or suspended on the mistaken premise that all Circles delivery had ceased with immediate effect. Crisis discussions were entered at the highest level with the Ministry of Justice and senior probation officials. As a result, referrals for Circles in London were reinstated and the project was able to continue. Significant delays had, however, been caused.

Despite the challenges faced, by October 2019 the goal of establishing 94 Circles in London had been achieved. Multi Agency relationships have remained robust ever since. The pay-off delivered by the project in London is such that the National Probation Service has since provided ongoing funding. Financial support has also been given by the City Bridge Trust. That the people of London still benefit from the improvements in public protection afforded by Circles is testament to the creative ‘can-do’ attitude of Circle Volunteers and staff. Their example is repeated across the country.

Results by Borough

Circles were provided in 30 of the 32 boroughs – an outstanding achievement for a small staff team, particularly given the challenges and setbacks they encountered.

Conclusion 

This article/blog has outlined the successes, challenges and learning of the operational delivery of the Completing the Circle project. It does not include the results of an independent evaluation of the project. This can be found in a separate article/blog which can be accessed here. 

Circles UK would like to express its sincere appreciation to the National Lottery for funding the project, the Sexual Offences, Crime and Misconduct Research Unit (SOCMRU), Nottingham Trent University and the Circles Providers who participated as delivery partners. These were: 

• Circles South East https://circlessoutheast.org.uk/ 

• The Safer Living Foundation https://www.saferlivingfoundation.org/ 

• Change, Grow, Live https://www.changegrowlive.org/ 

• re;shape (no longer operational) 

• CROPT (no longer operational)

MoJ Proved Wrong

We've covered the astonishing decision by the MoJ to defund Circles of Support and Accountability before and this evaluation report serves to confirm just how bad decision-making is at Marsham Street:-

An Evaluation of the ‘Completing the Circle’ Project 

On 25th November 2020 Circles UK hosted a seminar to launch the results of an in-depth, independent evaluation study undertaken by a research team at the Sexual Offences, Crime and Misconduct Research Unit (SOCMRU), Nottingham Trent University. The evaluation study captured the findings of a four-year project entitled ‘Completing the Circle: A Community Approach to Reducing Sexual Abuse.’ Over 100 participants attended the event, representing agencies and organisations from countries as far afield as Sweden, Canada, and New Zealand. 

What was the Completing the Circle Project? 

Loneliness, isolation, and alienation are known high risk factors for sexual recidivism. Circles are a unique programme for reducing these risks. Circles work with high-risk sexual harm causers to augment stretched statutory provision for this group of offenders and so help prevent further sexual abuse. 

In a Circle, 4-6 local Volunteers work with an individual who has been assessed as a high risk. The ‘Circle’ meets for at least 12 months. The person who has committed a sexual offence/s – known as the Core Member – is supported by the Volunteers to reintegrate safely into the community. The Volunteers also hold him/her/they accountable for their past and future behaviours. 

In 2015 the National Lottery Community Fund awarded a grant of £2,040,394 to a consortium of Circle Providers brought together and led by Circles UK. The Consortium was tasked to establish delivery in parts of the country where Circles did not exist. These areas were Merseyside, London, Lincolnshire, Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Northamptonshire. 

Outcomes 

Results were impressive. In just over four years, Circles Providers were set up in all previously ‘un-served’ areas, 188 Circles were delivered and almost 800 Volunteers were recruited, trained, and supervised. Together these Volunteers spent nearly 40,000 hours engaged in Circle activities. Qualitative results, drawing from a thematic analysis of reports compiled at the end of each Circle, along with interviews with a sample of key participants, produced evidence which markedly illustrated the complexities surrounding the Core Member client group, the individualised and distinctly ‘person centred’ character of the Circles model and the skill and tenacity demonstrated by Volunteers.

A number of statistically significant findings were also identified: 

• Risk Reduced 

The risk of sexual reoffending presented by Core Members declined. Shifts in dynamic risk factors were measured using an established tool called the Dynamic Risk Review (DRR). Analysis revealed that the risk associated with ‘dynamic’, changeable variables reduced after three months involvement with a Circle, with further dynamic risk reductions over time. Impressively, Core Members in the study demonstrated an 18% reduction in dynamic risk scores over the course of their Circle.

These incremental reductions in dynamic risk over time reinforce a long-established understanding that effecting change among the serious sexual harm causers targeted by Circles requires time, commitment, and persistence. There is no ‘short fix’ when it comes to supporting Core Members to alter damaging and often deeply entrenched behaviours. However, relationships developed over a prolonged period have a demonstrable and positive effect. 

• Reintegration Improved 

Protective factors known to inhibit the risk of sexual recidivism also showed significant improvement across a range of variables, including accommodation, the number of stable, emotional relationships, employment and purposeful activities and hobbies. 

After only 3 months on a Circle: 

• 96% of Core Members were in stable and suitable accommodation; this increased to 100% at 9 months. 

• 26% of Core Members were in paid or voluntary employment; this increased to 42% at 9 months.

• Wellbeing Increased 

Emotional wellbeing is an important protective factor which research has shown contributes to desistance from sexual offending. The study results demonstrated that Circles significantly improve the emotional wellbeing of Core Members. At the start of their Circle, each Core Member had significantly poorer emotional wellbeing than the average person. Their emotional wellbeing improved significantly, however, throughout the duration of their Circle. The data demonstrate an 18% increase in wellbeing scores, with 67% of the Core Members demonstrating significant improvements in wellbeing by the time their Circle came to an end.

The Wider Benefits 

There was also a pay-off for local citizens and communities. As well as the improved community safety afforded by Circles, the evaluation highlighted the reciprocal nature of volunteering in a Circle. Findings taken from comparisons of pre- and post-training questionnaires revealed that the training delivered to Circles Volunteers was informative and impactful. Furthermore, over time, the confidence levels of Volunteers increased, and they acquired transferable skills which sometimes improved their employability, as this quote demonstrates.

Conclusion 

‘Completing the Circle’ was an ambitious four-year project which set out to end the ‘postcode lottery’ of access to Circles. It achieved this objective and generated fresh evidence of the far-reaching community safety and rehabilitative benefits of Circles. 

Circles UK wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the National Lottery for funding the project and the research team at the Sexual Offences, Crime and Misconduct Research Unit (SOCMRU), Nottingham Trent University. We also wish to pay tribute to the Circles Providers that participated as delivery partners and whose commitment and expertise were instrumental to the project’s success. These were: 

Circles South East https://circlessoutheast.org.uk/
The Safer Living Foundation https://www.saferlivingfoundation.org/
Change, Grow, Live https://www.changegrowlive.org/
Re:shape (organisation has ceased operation)
CROPT (organisation has ceased operation)

Leah Warwick
National Development Manager Circles UK

30th March 2021

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...

Slow Sunday

With Parliament having packed up for the summer and the Transport Minister embarrassingly caught out by his own department changing the rules after heading off to Spain, I guess covid notwithstanding, we are now technically in the silly season:-  

Definition of silly season. 1 : a period (such as late summer) when the mass media often focus on trivial or frivolous matters for lack of major news stories. 2 : a period marked by frivolous, outlandish, or illogical activity or behaviour.

Homelessness is most definitely never a frivolous matter, but this BBC news item is somewhat recycled from a couple of weeks ago and even blogs are sometimes stuck for something new to say:- 

Nearly 200 released sex offenders had nowhere to live

Almost 200 sex offenders were released from prison in England and Wales in one year without having anywhere to live, Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures show. More than 100 of them were classed as posing a "high" or "very high" risk to the public. Probation inspectors have warned that freed prisoners who sleep rough are more likely to commit further crimes.

The Probation Service said it worked closely with local councils to help those leaving prison.

The figures, for England and Wales in 2018-19, were supplied by the MoJ under the Freedom of Information Act. They show that on 68 occasions "high and very high risk" sex offenders, who were on licence for more than six months, had no accommodation on release. A further 53 homelessness cases involved "high risk" sex offenders with a licence period of more than 12 months, and 70 involved "medium risk" sex offenders with more than six months on licence.

Earlier this month, the chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell, criticised the lack of a "cross-government" approach to housing offenders, pointing out that prisoners with no settled accommodation were almost twice as likely to be sent back to jail within 12 months of release.

In an inspection report, he blamed the problem on:

• housing shortages
• high up-front rental costs
• low-priority on housing registers
• lack of support services
• benefit delays
• "providers averse to accommodating people with substantial criminal records"

Mr Russell said: "We were particularly disturbed by the high numbers of higher-risk prisoners being released into homelessness or unsettled accommodation." The report found that in 2018-19 at least 22% of prisoners presenting the highest risk to the public were homeless or had nowhere stable to stay, amounting to 6,515 individuals.

In total, there were 11,435 occasions when prisoners were homeless when they were let out - 16% of released male offenders and 18% of female inmates.

The Probation Service, which is part of the MoJ, said the figures for sex offenders showed accommodation on the day of release and did not necessarily mean they "remained homeless afterwards". It says it has introduced new teams dedicated to finding housing, and is increasing places in "approved premises", also known as "bail hostels" or "probation hostels". It adds that it has helped "hundreds of offenders" stay off the streets as part of the Government's Rough Sleeping Strategy.

A spokesperson said: "Public protection is our number one priority. Sex offenders on licence must report regularly to their probation officer and abide by strict conditions which if breached can see them go back to prison."

During the coronavirus lockdown, BBC News discovered that 142 prisoners were put up in hotels and bed and breakfast accommodation to limit the spread of Covid-19.

Sad Result of a Bad Decision

We've talked about Circles of Support and Accountability before and the incredulous decision by NPS/MoJ to cease funding it. It was all tied-up with the TR omnishambles and in my view is yet further evidence of why probation should return to being a stand-alone service, funded nationally but organised locally. Here, on the Clinks website, is the back story to the complete closure of a once brilliant concept and successful initiative in the North of England:-

The end of the road - lessons and reflections from a charity preventing sexual harm

In this guest blog Tammy Banks, former CEO of re:shape, talks openly about the recently closed charity and what led to its demise. She discusses the rising need for the charity’s services – preventing sexual harm – the commitment of its workforce, and the challenges of the funding environment.

I have recently closed down a charity doing excellent work because statutory services are in disarray. re:shape was an organisation that used volunteers to prevent sexual harm, working with hundreds of volunteers across Yorkshire, Humberside, Lincolnshire, Cumbria and Lancashire. It was a community project which transformed people’s lives and prevented people becoming victims.

re:shape worked positively with people who were a risk of causing sexual harm or who had already caused harm. They had been through the criminal justice system and were released back into the community, but were still assessed as being a risk. I saw a rapid rise in the demand for the service over the six years I was CEO. Our referrers were the National Probation Service, the police, prisons, local authority, NHS, charity projects, religious communities, parents and even individuals themselves. Volunteers gave thousands of hours every year to the charity. Interventions were independently proven to prevent further offences by nearly 80%.

I joined the organisation just as Transforming Rehabilitation was being implemented. My brief was to survive the year (or two) it would take to embed the new way of working. We scrimped and scraped by with charitable funding plugging the gaps, whilst statutory funders tried to get systems in place. We navigated complex statutory relationships where we often knew things about their internal workings before they did; where senior managers, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and other commissioners hadn’t told their operational staff about the internal changes they were making.

At the same time as this was happening, the country – and the world – appeared to be waking up to some of the realities of sexual abuse. The media was helpful in some cases by breaking down stereotypes and highlighting the abuse that was happening in organisations, the collusion and the fact that it generally isn’t the stereotype of old men in parks abusing children. #Metoo happened. Other high profile cases stunned the country and we suddenly saw another rise in the people wanting to access our services. Amazingly, we also received enquiry after enquiry from people wanting to volunteer. We built an army of trained, informed people, dedicated to preventing sexual harm and working towards no more victims locally.

The incongruence is almost laughable! People’s needs were increasing, understanding of our services was increasing, while funding was decreasing. Applications to our usual funders who have been so supportive in the past were met with sad and resigned no’s. They said things like, “your work should be funded by statutory services, we’ve subsidised it for 10 years already”, and “There are other charities that need our money and we need to distribute our limited funds fairly.”

At the same time, we were being asked by statutory funders to develop more flexible services – to amend our approach to work with more people – giving us small amounts of money here and there. Probation started looking into national commissioning for us and other intervention providers because the work was so valued. There is nothing else like it and it works – it prevents victims.

We continued developing, increased our impact and grew the most amazing, professional, skilled and dedicated staff team and hundreds of volunteers. The difference we were making was tangible. It was real, it was preventing victims. Then we received the news: there would be no national funding. The MoJ had made its decision and the decision was final. We received a letter saying they recognise the importance of the services we were offering but that they had re-routed the money elsewhere. We were asked to apply locally and to go on the Community Rehabilitation Company rate cards.

This meant four more complex organisations to engage with and months and months of inconsistent messaging and processes. All the time, during this uncertainty, fantastic staff and volunteers were still delivering interventions, working with some of the riskiest people in the community, helping people transform their lives, being part of the change and making a difference – working collaboratively towards the mission of no more victims.

We literally tried everything to survive: fundraising, small grants, large grants, local commissioning and national commissioning. At every juncture there was hope and we continued in hope, whilst watching our reserve funds dwindle away.

A couple of years on and the momentum that was built around truly preventing sexual abuse has nearly silenced. The media isn’t bothered anymore as Brexit has taken over. People’s heads are turned and they’re focused on other situations which are also very concerning. The probation service is going through reform again. Perhaps they’ve realised Transforming Rehabilitation was a mistake. Perhaps they’ve listened to all the dedicated frontline probation professionals who proclaimed that these radical reforms were devastating, and who shouted it from the rooftops six years ago.

Of course, sexual abuse continues. It’s an unfortunate fact that instances are rising and rising fast. Convictions are lower than ever before and the talk of culture change, abuse of power and standing together is growing weaker by the day. If we look at the situation from a cold monetary perspective, the current situation isn’t good for the public purse. Sexual abuse impacts everywhere: the victims, their families, the local communities, NHS services, courts, police, prison, social care, mental health services… and let’s not forget that trauma can impact a family’s ability to thrive for generations.

I look at the criminal justice system in absolute despair. Operational professionals in the system are under immense pressure. They’re trying their best whilst the whole system works against them. I’ve watched good service after good service close these last few years. Services that absolutely change people’s lives, prevent abuse and champion change… and now it’s us. I’m watching colleagues and friends in the sector near collapse and good people leaving through fear for their own mental health. What are we going to be left with?

As a country, I’m so worried about the future. I’m holding on tight to the fact that, in the last ten years, our dedicated volunteers have done amazing things. They’ve absolutely prevented hundreds and hundreds of victims and I’m sure that their training and experiences will have had an impact on their values and understanding. I think this is true of many partner agencies that we have worked with and trained too. I’m pleased to say that a selection of our services will be continuing under the umbrella of other organisations, but unfortunately many areas, including all of Yorkshire, will have no service available.

I am truly thankful to the wonderful trustees, who gave up their time and used their skills and expertise for further impact. Quakers gave us our beginning and our principles and, over the years, this has led every single decision towards our aim of ‘No more victims’.

We are at the end of the road now. We will be putting all our intellectual property as a free download from March at www.re-shape.org.uk. Please take and utilise what you wish. I hope it continues to help prevent sexual harm in the future.

Tammy is on Twitter at @tammybanksy, on LinkedIn, and can be contacted by email at Tammy@tayetraining.org.uk.

Tammy Banks
Re:shape (formerly YHLCOSA)

Are They Telling the Truth

Just one of the many occupational hazards routinely faced by Probation Officers is trying to decide when someone is lying. Anyone with some years experience will be well aware of the wry observation often made by Prison Officers regarding having to deal with 'whole wings of innocent men.' There will be some of course, but the trick is trying to decide which ones are lying.

There could be no better example of the high stakes involved in getting it right and making the right call in terms of risk than that of the Worboys case. It takes considerable skill and experience to decide where the line can be drawn in assessing the level of risk regarding release and make the right judgement call between being too cautious and risk averse on the one hand and too confident and optimistic on the other. A key factor in making this decision is always 'are they telling me the truth'. This on the BBC website:-    

Black cab rapist John Worboys given two life sentences

Black cab rapist John Worboys has been handed two life sentences with a minimum term of six years for attacking four more women. The 62-year-old, who is now known as John Radford, was jailed in 2009 for assaults on 12 women in London. The four victims came forward after a public outcry caused by a Parole Board ruling that he was safe to be freed. Sentencing Worboys, Mrs Justice McGowan said she did not know when "if ever you will cease to be a risk".

In 2009, Worboys was locked up indefinitely for the public's protection with a minimum term of eight years after being found guilty of 19 sex offences against 12 women between 2006 and 2008. In January 2018, the Parole Board said Worboys would be freed after serving 10 years but victims challenged the decision. That decision was later overturned by the High Court, leading to a review of the decision where the Parole Board decided Worboys must remain in jail.

Among the reasons given for refusing Worboys parole were his "sense of sexual entitlement" and a need to control women. Prosecutor Duncan Penny QC told the Old Bailey that psychiatrist Philip Joseph found Worboys had been "fantasising" about attacking women since 1986. A probation report in August this year found "he is potentially just as dangerous now as the point of the first sentence".

After the four women came forward, Worboys, of Enfield, admitted two charges of administering a drug with intent to commit rape or indecent assault. He also pleaded guilty to two further charges of administering a substance with intent to commit a sexual offence.

Mr Penny said the first victim was targeted in 2000 or early 2001 after a night out at a wine bar in Dover Street in Soho. The second victim, a university student living in north London, was picked up after a night out with friends at a club on New Oxford Street in 2003. Worboys' third victim was picked up after a night out on King's Road in 2007 where he told her he had won £40,000 at a casino and offered her champagne.

The court heard Worboys told the fourth victim he had won the lottery and offered her and her friend miniature bottles of champagne. Mr Penny said: "She woke up in bed the following morning. The bedclothes had not moved and her hands were crossed over her chest, which was unusual. "She was sufficiently unnerved to check herself. There were no visible signs she had been touched."

Mr Penny told the court: "The consistent themes throughout, together with the content of what took place, seems to be the profound effect not knowing what happened has had in each of these women throughout their lives, as a result of having been unfortunate enough to get into the defendant's black cab."

Analysis

If an offender tells lies, does that increase their risk to the public? That's the key issue at the heart of this case. John Worboys lied to psychologists before his parole hearing in 2017, giving a carefully-crafted account that tallied only with the crimes he'd been convicted of.

He was assessed as safe to be released from prison. But, when more victims came forward Worboys changed his story. Despite this Dr Jackie Craissati, an experienced clinical forensic psychologist, told the court she believes Worboys poses a low risk of sexual reoffending. She says she doesn't expect offenders to give "truthful and full" accounts of their behaviour when assessing how dangerous they are.

The judge clearly did not agree, and many others may baulk at the idea that someone who can't be trusted to tell the truth about their crimes can nevertheless be trusted in the community. Police believe Worboys may have carried out more than 100 rapes and sexual assaults on women in London.

Becki Houlston, who has waived her right to anonymity, said Worboys drugged her in Bournemouth. "He was pretty pre-meditated from the get-go, and I was a woman on my own," she told the BBC. "He is highly manipulative and relentless. It becomes easier to just accept a drink to shut him up."

In Ms Houlston's case, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Reacting to the sentencing, the CPS's Tina Dempster said: "John Worboys is a dangerous predator who still poses a clear threat to women."

Danny Shaw, BBC home affairs correspondent

TR Has Dire Consequences

Regular readers will recall that I mentioned a few days ago that when addressing a London Napo Branch meeting, Nick Hardwick, the former Chair of the Parole Board, warned that there could be high profile cases about to become public and be 'weaponised' during the election campaign. It looks like this is one of them as reported on the BBC website:-

Joseph McCann guilty of sex attacks on 11 women and children

A man who carried out a string of sex attacks on 11 women and children across England over two weeks has been found guilty of 37 offences. Joseph McCann's victims were aged between 11 and 71 and included three women who were abducted off the street at knifepoint and repeatedly raped. The 34-year-old also raped a mother in her home and then tied her to a bed as he molested her son and daughter. McCann, of Harrow, was found guilty of offences including rape and kidnap.

The convicted burglar had been released from prison following a probation error in February before he embarked on a cocaine and vodka-fuelled rampage. McCann's "spree of sex attacks" started in Watford before moving to London, Greater Manchester and Cheshire over two weeks in April and May. Hundreds of officers from five forces were deployed in the manhunt before he was finally caught while hiding in a tree. Det Ch Insp Katherine Goodwin described him as "one of the most dangerous sex offenders the country has ever seen".

Jo Farrar, chief executive of HM Prisons and Probation Service, "apologised unreservedly" for "failings" which led to McCann being released early, adding that "strong and immediate action" had been taken against those involved with the case.

--oo00oo--

This report, also on the BBC website, details the chronology and the consequences of TR that saw experienced staff dumped, a service thrown into crisis and the result of Civil Service process-driven bureacracy and secrecy:- 

Joseph McCann: The failures that let violent criminal back on the streets

The crimes of serial rapist Joseph McCann shocked the country and sparked a nationwide manhunt. But he was a violent offender out on licence from prison. How did justice system failures leave him free to start his spree?

Joseph McCann struck terror and fear into his victims. One teenage girl, who'd been held at knifepoint and raped in front of her young brother, said he had eyes of "pure evil". Although the 34-year-old never appeared in front of the jury during his trial, his threatening and menacing presence was clear from the testimony of those he attacked - and it seems to have been a theme throughout his life.

Born in February 1985, McCann had problems controlling his anger as a child and was in trouble with police from the age of 11, before going on to commit a series of offences including theft, criminal damage and handling stolen goods. While in his teens, there were warning signs of his tendency to carry weapons when he was convicted of possession of a bladed article. Then, in 2008, aged 23, he was jailed for a violent burglary at the home of an 85-year-old man. He broke in through a side door and threatened the pensioner with a knife.

McCann was said by his barrister to be "thoroughly ashamed" of what he'd done. According to a newspaper report of the court case, his "goal" was to live a crime-free life and provide for his family legitimately. He'd missed the birth of his partner's first child because he was in prison and would be locked up when she gave birth again. But because the judge considered him to be dangerous, McCann was ordered to serve a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP), which meant that after a minimum term of two-and-a-half years he'd be freed only when the Parole Board decided it was safe to do so.

These sentences, designed to protect the public from dangerous prisoners, were scrapped in 2012. They formed part of the recent row between political parties over the release of London Bridge attacker Usman Khan.

It's an indication of how entrenched McCann's offending behaviour was that the board rejected his applications for parole three times, in 2010, 2012 and 2014. However, while in prison, in an effort to convince the authorities he could be safely let out, McCann completed a wide range of rehabilitation programmes, among them courses on thinking skills, victim awareness and building healthy relationships.

He was moved to a unit at Wymott Prison, Lancashire, for inmates with complex offending needs, including those with a personality disorder. He was also sent to Warren Hill jail, in Suffolk, which specialises in helping prisoners show they are suitable for release through a programme of "risk reduction".

By the time of his fourth parole hearing probation and prison officials said McCann's behaviour had improved, and he was freed in March 2017 on condition that he stay initially at an approved premises, also known as a bail or probation hostel, abide by a curfew, undergo drug testing and inform the authorities of any new relationship he entered into. But within months McCann was back in trouble. He was arrested and charged with burglary and, in August, remanded in custody. Crucially, however, the authorities had not followed the correct procedures.

Because McCann had been on licence from prison when he was arrested, he should have been recalled to jail - a process that would have ensured the Parole Board was informed by the Probation Service about his case. But that didn't happen. The failure to do so was hugely significant - it meant the board had no control over decisions about his future release.

"There were shocking consequences, life-changing consequences," said Prof Nick Hardwick, who was chair of the Parole Board at the time. "If the case had been referred back to the Parole Board, as it should have been, he wouldn't have been re-released and those awful events wouldn't have happened."

In January 2018, after being found guilty of burglary, McCann was sentenced. Luton Crown Court heard that he'd broken into a house, stolen car keys and, along with an accomplice, driven off in two BMWs. Judge Richard Foster said McCann had told the jury a "pack of lies" and described his record as "appalling". He noted the offences had been committed while on licence, telling him: "You're pulling the wool over the eyes of your supervising officers."

Judge Foster acknowledged that McCann's case should have been referred to the Parole Board. "You certainly should have been recalled," he said, suggesting it was not too late to do so. "You will serve three years in custody... to run concurrently with your current sentence if you are recalled," he said, adding that his jail term should not be reduced because of "time served" in prison while on remand.

But in spite of being given such a heavy hint by the judge, the recall process was not applied, the Parole Board was not informed about the case and time served on remand was counted as part of his sentence. As a result McCann was dealt with as any offender given a fixed-term, or determinate, sentence would be. He was released at the halfway point, after 18 months, in February 2019. Two months later, he began his devastating spree of offending.

Had McCann been referred to the Parole Board, it would not have considered his release until the summer. A panel would have assessed his case in great detail and the expectation is that he would not have been let out at that stage. Questions about the failure to notify the board centre on the National Probation Service - and in particular, its office at Watford, Hertfordshire, where McCann's case was being handled.

Ian Lawrence, general secretary of the probation union NAPO, said there was a variety of problems there, including a number of senior staff changes. "It was pretty much chaos in the office in terms of the supervisory system," he told BBC News. "It was not a happy place."

In September 2019, an inspection report found that performance in the wider region was undermined by workloads that were "too high", with officers having to manage an average of 42 cases each. The report said there were "significant staff shortages", with gaps filled by agency workers, and identified problems assessing the threat posed by offenders. "Staff did not sufficiently analyse the risk of serious harm or consider victims and potential victims," it added.

As a result of the failings, four probation officers from the Watford office faced disciplinary proceedings, one of whom was found guilty of gross misconduct and has since been demoted. Two other workers were investigated for poor performance, including their handling of the McCann case. One employee was sacked and the contract of the other individual, who was from an agency, was terminated.

But Nick Hardwick believes individual members of staff should not be made scapegoats for more fundamental weaknesses within a system that has had to contend with budget cuts and a controversial re-structuring in 2014. "What we don't know is whether the context of the pressures and resource shortages the probation service are under were contributory factors," he said. "So, it's no good just looking at the person on the front line who made the decision - we need to look at the wider system failures here to see where the buck should stop."

Dr Jo Farrar, chief executive of HM Prisons and Probation Service, offered sympathy to McCann's victims for his "appalling crimes". "We recognise that there were failings and we apologise unreservedly for our part in this," she said. "We are committed to doing everything we possibly can to learn from this terrible case."

In addition to action against those who managed McCann's case, she said the the organisation was taking "significant steps to improve intelligence-sharing between agencies". New mandatory training on recall is being developed for all probation officers, and guidance on when prisoners should be recalled has been updated, added Dr Farrar.