The Inspector Writes

HM Chief Inspector of Probation writes a blog and this is what he has to say, published today:-

London Probation’s staffing crisis – but better news on YOTs

Our first inspection results for London Probation Service continued the worrying trend of the past year, with each of the three PDU reports we published on 18 October rated as ‘Inadequate’ and inadequate ratings for all of our case quality standards. We were particularly concerned about Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham PDU, where we declared an ‘organisational alert’ in view of the hundreds of cases we found that did not have a named probation officer or PSO and were therefore not being properly supervised. Worryingly, this included 58 unallocated MAPPA cases, some of whom had committed very serious offences. Whilst these have now been matched with practitioners, the other huge challenges facing London Probation won’t be so easy to fix. Top of these, is what amounts to a staffing crisis. 

There are vacancies across virtually every role and function in London, with an overall vacancy rate of 43 per cent in HFKCW PDU at the time of our inspection, which is unsustainable. The most recent published probation workforce statistics show a total headcount for London in June 2022 that was 237 lower than in June 2021, in spite of heroic efforts to bring in more PQiPs and PSOs. And this is being compounded by rising sickness rates in the capital – now up to an average of 17 working days lost per annum – piling yet more pressure on those practitioners who are in post. Worryingly, at a national level, it is staff with five to nine years’ service, exactly the sort of experienced officers the service needs to hold onto, who have been most likely to leave.

In marked contrast, our youth offending service ratings have held up very well during the pandemic with our scores for London YOTs inspected after March 2020 matching, or even exceeding, those before the pandemic, with continuing strong scores for staffing, partnerships and services. At the same time as we were inspecting Hammersmith and Fulham Probation, for example, we were also inspecting Hammersmith and Fulham Youth Offending Service, which we rated ‘Outstanding’. Staff there told us caseloads were manageable; they felt valued and well trained; vacancy levels were low; robust quality checks and management oversight were in place and 85 per cent or more of the court cases we assessed passed our quality threshold.

Smaller caseloads are, of course, a significant factor in explaining this difference and significantly higher pay for YOT case managers than probation staff is helping recruitment (including of disaffected probation officers). But I wonder if the YOT model of locally autonomous services, often fully integrated into the local authority, with a wide range of embedded specialist staff (mental health, speech and language, ETE, drugs workers) is also a significant factor in the improved quality of supervision and support they offer and the resilience they have shown through the pandemic.

That’s not to say that everything is perfect in the world of youth offending services. An important analysis by our HMI research team was published last month of almost 2000 cases across 43 different YOTs looking at the identification of safety concerns relating to children (PDF, 564 kB). Whilst in general, YOTs score higher on risk assessment and management than probation, there are still gaps, particularly for community resolution cases. In a relatively large minority of cases, for example, the safety classifications deemed appropriate by our inspectors differed from that recorded by the case manager (we usually judged that the classification should have been higher). This can have damaging consequences, as the child may lose opportunities for support by the YOT and other partners, and potential victims can be left without protection. Given that nearly half of the court cases supervised by YOTs involve violence against the person and that 27 per cent involve children assessed as presenting a high or very high risk of harm to others, it’s very important to get this right.

Justin Russell

Latest From HMI

On 17th May the House of Commons Justice Committee took oral evidence from four HMI's and this is what Justin Russell had to say about probation:-  

Q79 Chair: Thank you for that, Mr Cayley. Mr Russell, what about probation? 

Justin Russell: Thank you, Chair. As you know, we inspect both probation and youth justice services. We have done that through the pandemic, and we have seen a very different picture between those two services. 

To start with probation, they have had a very tough year. They have had the twin challenges of implementing the unification structural reform, at the same time as recovering from covid and having to go in and out of the exceptional delivery arrangements that were required by covid lockdown. In spite of some very dedicated staff—like Andy, I pay tribute to the commitment of probation staff—they are still a long way from performing at pre-covid levels. Four out of the six of our recent local probation inspections have been rated inadequate and the quality of the work we are seeing in individual cases is down against all our quality standards. 

Although the proportion of cases being seen face to face by probation officers has significantly increased over the past year, which is positive, we are finding on our inspections that those face-to-face interactions are often little more than a brief check-in, with not enough real work being done around offending behaviour. We are finding that 70% to 80% of accredited programme requirements still have not started. Almost a third of unpaid work orders are not being completed within the first 12 months. 

Underlying all the impacts of covid are some deeper structural issues that we were finding before the pandemic. We see acute shortages of staff at all grades in some areas, in particular the south-east. For example, in Essex north, in a report we published this morning, we were told that the vacancy rate for senior probation officers and more junior probation service officers was 60% at the beginning of this year. In Kent, Surrey and Sussex— 

Q80 Chair: Perhaps we can explore that in a bit more detail: a big issue with staffing and vacancy rates. Anything else on probation? 

Justin Russell: In the Kent, Surrey, Sussex region, the overall vacancy rate for probation officers is a quarter. There are significant numbers of new recruits coming, and they have set some ambitious targets for recruitment, but it can take up to three years to recruit, train and settle in a new probation officer. We have to acknowledge that the number of people leaving the service is also going up, so the attrition rate is high. 

Q81 Chair: Can we move on to the youth justice side? We will come back to probation. 

Justin Russell: Youth justice has again had a challenging year but, interestingly, performance has held up. Two thirds of the YOTs we inspected we rated good or outstanding in the past year, and we have not found any inadequate. Their scores on leadership and management of out-of-court disposals are going up. They have been able to respond much more flexibly. The key issue is that they already had quite small caseloads and the caseloads have got even smaller. That has helped them to keep the standard of service going. 

Q82 Chair: That is very helpful, thanks. Mr Taylor, over to you.

--oo00oo--

Q123 Rob Butler: Fine, okay. Mr Russell, you touched on the fact that the probation service was unified in 2021, at the time of the pandemic. You expressed some reservations about how things have gone so far. How well do you think the probation service is operating as a unified model? 

Justin Russell: At the point of unification at the end of June last year, I said unification by itself was not a magic bullet for all the underlying problems we found with the service, and that has certainly proved to be the case since. The staff we are talking to do not feel all the problems have been solved. They say that the service seems to be operating in survival mode. 

There are three crucial things we are still finding as issues. First, in relation to the assessment and management of risk of harm to the public, potentially posed by people on probation, performance is at an unacceptable level. We are finding 60% of the cases we are looking at are unsatisfactory on that key aspect of practice; 40% of domestic abuse checks are not being done where they think they should. There is an issue around risk of harm that has not gone away and, if anything, is getting worse. 

The second issue is around delivery of practical support and interventions to people on probation, where we see courses not started, even by the end of a sentence. Domestic abuse perpetrators with requirements to start a course are still not completing that. At 30% to 40%, commencement is well down on that. The externally commissioned services to provide support around accommodation or education, training or employment activities, are again heavily over-subscribed, so we are starting to see some backlogs around that. 

The third issue, which I have referred to already, is around the acute staff shortages. The great majority of staff we are speaking to are saying that staff levels are simply not sufficient, and they feel their case loads are unmanageable. That problem has definitely not gone away and, if anything, is getting worse. 

Q124 Rob Butler: Have you seen any decrease in staff from the old CRCs, who did not want to join the newly unified service? 

Justin Russell: We can’t make a direct comparison of total staff numbers now with before unification, because we had no idea of CRC staff numbers. What has become evident, as we have seen the unification of the services, is that there were some big gaps in staffing at all grades. I certainly hear anecdotal evidence that some CRC staff are leaving. Published attrition rates have gone up in the last quarter of last year, and are particularly high in the south-east. 

Q125 Rob Butler: When I spoke to CRCs prior to unification, concerns were raised about whether, in the newly unified model, they would have the freedom that they had enjoyed in the CRCs. Examples were about types of flexible working. That was pre-covid times, so that was flexible working that suited where they needed to be for their clients. 

There were also things as simple as having an iPad, or similar tablet device, that they could work on while travelling, rather than have to go back to the office to get on a desktop monitor, as they had had to do previously with the former structure of the probation service. There were also concerns that some CRCs had more up-to-date software systems that gave real-time information about offenders, which were not going to migrate into the new unified model because the national probation service didn’t have one. Have you been able to assess whether there has been any impact of that move to unification? Have some of the advances that were made in CRCs been lost? 

Justin Russell: There are two issues. In terms of the autonomy that service leaders in particular have, because of covid there has been quite rigid control from the centre of what the delivery model should be under these exceptional delivery arrangements. When we have talked to service leaders, they have said that they have found that quite constraining, and that they are looking to acquire more freedoms as things return to normal. 

In terms of the systems that the CRCs developed, I have said to this Committee before that there were some rather good case management systems in London, the Thames valley and the KSS regions that have been lost as those staff have had to migrate on to OASys and then Delius, the public sector systems. Some of the CRC staff are struggling to cope with that, as they didn’t have long to get to know those systems and that learning still needs to be consolidated. 

Q126 Rob Butler: What is the impact of that on the service they can provide and on keeping people safe? One of the aspects that I was particularly worried about in the inspectorate review that we were sent is that there were real concerns about public safety. 

Justin Russell: Certainly, the scores in relation to the quality of assessments being undertaken by probation staff in some areas of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, and in the east of England, were worrying. In an inspection we published this morning on North Essex, we felt that only a quarter of the cases we looked at were satisfactory, in relation to the assessment and management of the risk of harm. That is a big concern for us. Misallocation of cases can result if you get that risk assessment wrong at the beginning of the process. If you don’t do the necessary domestic abuse checks, the public can be at risk. That is still our biggest area of concern in the inspections we are doing. 

Q127 Rob Butler: The number of people who have not completed their unpaid work requirements remains incredibly high. Why do you think that is, given that community restrictions have been lifted? 

Justin Russell: You are right: there are about 14,000 people who have been given an unpaid work order but have still not completed it within 12 months of the order. That is clearly an impact of the pandemic. In the period between March 2020 and the end of last year, there were eight months when it was literally impossible to deliver unpaid work because of lockdown restrictions on the use of minivans or social distancing requirements around placements. They have removed those restrictions since the beginning of April, but there is a huge backlog of work to get through, and that will take quite a bit of time. They have set a target of increasing delivery to 155% of pre-covid levels by September, but that is already pushing back the original trajectory, and they are quite a long way off that level at the moment. 

Q128 Rob Butler: How confident are you that they will reach that target? 

Justin Russell: I think more needs to be done. If you look at what they have got in hand, they are recruiting 500 more unpaid work staff. As I said, they have suspended all the restrictions and a wider range of placements has come on stream. Those new staff don’t really come on stream until June or July, but from that point you would hope to see quite a significant improvement in productivity and performance. The other thing they need to get right is compliance with unpaid work orders. They have seen a big drop-off in the proportion of people actually attending the sessions they are supposed to be doing. Merely by improving that rate of compliance, you would significantly increase the delivery of unpaid work. 

Q129 Rob Butler: On that note, I read, I think only today or yesterday, that in some areas they have invented something that is essentially unpaid working a box. People were sent almost a project that they could complete at home, so they could complete their hours that way. Is that really what the courts intend? 

Justin Russell: I think this was an innovation at the time of total lockdown, when it was literally impossible to run outdoor placements for unpaid work. Rather than not have any unpaid work happening, the alternative was, as you say, to provide projects that people could do at home. I think the focus now has to be on those outdoor placements— agreements with people like the Forestry Commission or the Canal & River Trust—to get people out and about doing visible community payback. 

Q130 Rob Butler: Ultimately, do you think the unified model of probation is going to be an improvement? 

Justin Russell: Yes, I think it was the right thing to do. I think people working in the service thought it was the right thing to do, but it will take at least two or three years to get to a steady state and see performance really improve. You need to fill these great staff vacancies, you need to improve the IT systems that they have, and you need to work on a credible set of programmes as well, so it is certainly some way off before we get to that point. 

Q131 Rob Butler: You touched briefly earlier also on youth offending teams. I think you described two thirds of them as doing well—not least because the case loads are smaller—which is a great tribute to all the people who work in those youth offending teams up and down the country. Are you concerned that case loads might increase with the move away from lockdowns and restrictions, and also with the increase in police numbers? It is certainly a concern that I have had expressed to me locally, in my own constituency, by the police. 

Justin Russell: As crime rates go up, you would expect case loads to increase as well. The interesting thing is the changing balance within case loads. We are seeing fewer and fewer court order cases, and more and more out-of-court diversion work. If police numbers do go up, the likelihood is that it will lead to more out-of-court diversions and community resolution work, which is actually now the majority of the case loads in many of the youth offending services that we are visiting. 

Q132 Rob Butler: Are you content that the funding model for those youth offending services properly reflects that shift in emphasis? 

Justin Russell: I think you have a combination of Youth Justice Board grants to the YOTs plus local funding coming in. They are actually reasonably well resourced at the moment. As you said, we are seeing very small case loads. It is not unusual to see a case manager with only six or seven cases on their books. If you compare that to a probation officer with 40 or 50, there is a huge gap, so I think there is an issue with where those resources are best targeted. They are quite rich in things such as adolescent mental health services, speech and language facilities, and specialist education workers. Could those workers be made available slightly further up the age range? I would like to see YOTs looking at maybe working with 18 or 19-year-olds, for example. That is something that would be worth exploring. 

Rob Butler: You’d be knocking at an open door with me, but I am not the person who makes the decision. I suspect Mr Taylor would like it as well. 

Chair: Many thanks, Mr Butler. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time. That has been very comprehensive, and we are grateful to you. The session is concluded.

Management Have The Answers

Hi Jim,

Plenty of food for thought here. I particularly like the one about the NQO becoming an SPO. Like many others, I have had enough and retire in a couple of months. Good luck and best wishes to those remaining.

Director General’s Trade Union Engagement Event (Friday 25thJanuary 2022): Q&A with Amy Rees, Jim Barton, Ian Barrow

WORKLOAD

Q. What is being done to reduce workloads and stress levels for staff other than using trainees thus overloading them or using resources in another team creating stressors there?

As Amy fully acknowledged in the session, there are currently shortfalls in staffing. However, every effort is being made to increase resource levels as quickly as possible. Our trainee probation officers are the future of the organisation and we will protect them whilst offering the best possible learning opportunities. The Prioritising Probation work being led by Kim Thornden-Edwards is actively looking at ways we can rationalise BAU processes and remove or reduce the number of tasks faced by front-line colleagues in the interim. We will report back on this as soon as we can. We are also looking closely at the way we are implementing essential changes within the organisation and we will seek where possible to regulate the rate at which it is delivered in order to reduce pressure. However, we must remain mindful that public protection is our priority and we know that our front-line staff will continue to work hard to deliver this. We understand and are very grateful for the level of dedication they show under huge pressure.

Q. Has a workload measurement tool been formulated and agreed upon for Victim Liaison Officers? Caseloads are excessive - 250 cases are allocated to a full-time VLO. Covering absences/sickness is also expected as part of duty rota.

It is acknowledged that there aren’t sufficient victim liaison officers in the system. The 22/23 target staffing uplift for VLOs will enable us to start moving towards enhancements and or reinforce the delivery of the existing victim contact scheme. With regards to the workload management tool and the inclusion of VLOS, this remains an area for future development; however, we are unable to give you an indication of the timescale for development due to other priority work.

DIVERSITY & EQUALITY

Q. Do you accept that probation is institutionally racist - and that vetting is an example of how not to reflect the communities we serve?

Whilst we must accept that the results of the recent race survey were not all we could have hoped for, action plans are well underway to address many of the issues raised and we take this very seriously. However, as Amy pointed out, in terms of staffing demographic overall, we are slightly ahead of the 14% national target representation for minority ethnic staff. We do accept that there are regional variations that we are working hard to improve upon. Some work is also still required to achieve this level of representation in senior management posts which currently stands at 11%. We also continue to work towards improving the vetting process with the aim that it should normally take no longer than 20 days. However, we must ask you to accept that the vetting process is prescribed and is not one over which we have sole control.

Q. When can we expect staff that have come across from the CRCs have full access to the I.T. apps in the same way previous NPS staff have?

We are not aware of widespread issues with staff being unable to access apps and there is certainly no reason why this should be the case for staff on the DOM1 system.

We have spoken directly to Darren and offered suggestions for him to get what application and shared drive access he needs. He informs us that someone has already also been in touch with him about Cardinus.

Any other union members experiencing difficulties in this regard please contact the ICT Helpdesk via the Technology Portal in the first instance and they can advise. For applications which are not owned by the service such as Cardinus, please discuss with your local Business Manager who should be able to direct you on how to access.

Q. In 2022 is it acceptable to be adding buildings to the estate which are not accessible? e.g. no lifts.

All PS Probation Offices should be designed with a diverse range of users in mind, some of whom may require increased accessibility in order to act independently, safely and with ease. Under the Equality Act 2010, we must also cater for those with accessibility requirements and ensure that all employees have equal access to facilities, services, and premises. Following the onboarding of legacy CRC sites in 2021, we continue to assess the estate and look at improving accessibility in all of our offices through local Facilities Management and wider project initiatives. We are aware of one property where it was not possible to source a suitable alternative premise or install a lift in the probation building. This is an exceptional circumstance and does not reflect our wider policy.

Over the last 2 years we’ve managed to bring huge investment to the estate with us delivering major refurbishments and new acquisitions which now meet our Design Guide principles and within that meet the accessibility requirements.

Following the Spending Review, we are finalising our strategy a further investment over the next 2 years again including major refurbs and new acquisitions to meet the following criteria:

• Assists the region in aligning their estate to the Target Operating Model
• Following the project, the property will be PS Estates Design Guide compliant (meet the accessibility requirements)
• Following the project, the property will effectively support smarter working

We’ll continue to communicate progress and evolution of the Estate and we are already looking into developing the future estates strategies for your Regions beyond the Probation Reform Programme, improving accessibility and security and support future moves to mixed caseloads.

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

Q. Positive to hear numbers for recruitment and future forecasting. How do we keep staff in the interim? Staff that will be asked to support these new staff in their development​.

Whilst acknowledging that the resource issue has been both long-standing and frustrating, we cannot overstate how much we value our staff who have stuck with it through that challenge. We are very confident that we are now turning the corner on this issue. As was said in the session, there is an unprecedented investment in growing the workforce. Although it may take some more time and effort to get us to the final outcome, we hope our colleagues whom we know genuinely care about the service will see that there is genuine progress and that the leadership are determined to deliver a fully resourced service to the highest standards.

Q. What is the current retention rate at frontline delivery? Themes are clearly coming through that colleagues are leaving, especially very experienced front line staff, understand Pay is a factor, but so are many other things. ​

For 12 months to 30 September 2021, attrition for the Probation Service is 7.7%, which is an increase of 1.1 percentage points from 6.6% for 12 months to 30 June 2021. This figure is lower than the overall HMPPS leaving rate as of 30 September 2021, which is 10.1%.

Nationally, Probation Officer attrition rates are 6.9% for 12 months to September 2021, which is an increase of 1.1 percentage points from 5.8% for 12 months to June 2021.

In April 2021 we published internally the first Probation Service Recruitment and Retention Strategy (2021/2024) which outlines our commitment in 5 key objectives:

• Increasing Probation Officer numbers
• Ensuring workloads are manageable
• Recruiting a diverse workforce
• Increasing recruitment in hard to fill sites
• Attracting and retaining talented people

We are in the process of reviewing this strategy against our year one objectives (2021/2022) and updating as appropriate our year two objectives (2022/2023). To inform this work we are conducting extensive analysis and wide-ranging stakeholder engagement. Our findings and outcomes will be published in the updated Recruitment and Retention Strategy in spring 2022.

We understand the importance of retaining experienced staff in the service. As outlined in the Strategy, our focus has been on addressing recruitment and retention challenges within the Probation Service, in particular within Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) with the highest average Probation Officer vacancy rates. As part of our work, we identified several common drivers of attrition which include, pay and benefits, and lack of career progression. Work is underway to address these:

• A new standardised approach to exit interviews has been introduced. Alongside analysis of the People Survey 2021 results for Probation, this will help identify current drivers of attrition and further inform our work on retention.

• We launched three career pathways for staff approaching retirement, to help encourage them to remain in service as we recognise that they come with a wealth of experience.

• We are engaging with Trade Unions in February on retention proposals for Newly Qualified Probation Officers as part of our work around retention of staff. These proposals aim to retain PQIP’s in qualifying regions, and new recruits to regions for a period of two years.

• Communicated to staff the availability of key worker housing in some areas (discounted rent or shared equity schemes for key workers including frontline probation staff).

• A new retention toolkit is being developed and will be used by regions to address local retention issues.

Q. Can I ask how we balance fair and open competition with the need for experience in a role before becoming a manager? I am aware that there have been recent appointments of NQOs into SPO roles, where for example, they cannot hold a MAPPA case in their own name as an NQO, but as an SPO they will be core panel reps for MAPPA. This does not seem to make sense to me!

There is currently no minimum experience requirement before applying to become an SPO, this means that NQOs can apply through fair and open competition to an advertised position post qualification. Recruitment panels are required to vigorously test the suitability of all candidates through the application and interview process before they are appointed to the role. Including a minimum level of experience such as 2 or 3 years could amount to discrimination and a breach of recruitment principles. It may be possible to include an alternative requirement (such as experience of dealing with high risk cases) which if implemented would require a reformulation of the SPO Job Description.

PAY

Q. What is the point of pay negotiations if the treasury simply veto's any progress? 

Amy Rees acknowledged the frustration that complex pay deals can cause and the delays in paying out what has been agreed. However, she was clear that Treasury do not "veto" pay progress. Rather it is a case of trying to negotiate with trades union colleagues a deal that is realistic and affordable which both sides can work with. Probation Service leaders are looking at innovative ways to structure pay awards in a way that avoids some of the difficulties, such as multi-year pay deals which mean that there is no need to refer back to the Treasury annually with the potential delays that can cause.

SUPPORT

Q. Would it be possible for a training event for SPOs to support with the use of SOP/managing poor performance/attendance management?

As indicated by Ian Barrow during the event, he is happy to look into arranging this. This idea was also favourably regarded by NAPO and Katie Lomas referred to its previous popularity and success.

Q. Are there any plans to increase the levels of support specifically available to young people transitioning over from Youth Offending Teams? Or a programme of work focusing on those between the ages of 18-24? The transition period is a key time for young people, and we face a significant drop in services who are able to assist us and the young people.

We recognise that it is vital to get the transition from youth to adult services right and that working with all Young Adults aged 18-25, gives us a great window of opportunity to reduce the risk of re-offending and harm and help people lead positive, pro-social lives. On 7th February we launch Next Steps – a resource for Youth Justice Services secondees and Probation Practitioners to support the transition process. The next steps are aligned with the principles of good transition and gives practitioners structure to adhere to the Joint National Protocol for transitions, involving partnership agencies and other important people - all key to the Young Adult's successful transition. It is available on EQuiP and can be recorded as a non-statutory intervention. We have also just launched the Probation Service Management of Young Adults policy framework which, once implemented, will support the Probation Service in responding to the distinct needs of this age group.

WELLBEING

Q. Sensible conversations with managers about stress and workload are well and good - but what is expected of managers to RESOLVE that problem? there is nowhere else for work to go!​

As was said earlier, we acknowledge the resourcing issues, but would once again offer reassurance that everything possible is being done through initiatives such as Prioritising Probation to see what tasks we can cut down on or even potentially halt altogether as a way of managing the situation whilst we grow and train the workforce. We expect some results from this fairly soon and we will report back as soon as we get this.

Q. What central planning is involved in delivering messages, new policies, etc? It can feel at times there is a lack of appreciation of the practicality of implementing a new policy that impacts operational staff that are already over-worked and that this is not centralised in terms of timing and priorities​.

All the evidence points to the fact that change was required to make the future Probation Service all it can be. The Probation Reform Programme has been working hard to design, develop and deliver the essential reforms which we believe will in due course have a very positive impact on how the service operates. However, we also acknowledge that in the current operating environment, the volume and rate of change are challenging. We are currently looking actively at the “change load” to assess whether some adjustments to how change is introduced might improve things at a front-line operations level at least in the short term.

The Probation portfolio is being developed at pace to better align and sequence change across the business as well as the change activity work in the prioritising probation initiative.

WORKING FROM HOME

Q. There was a piece of academic research in the most recent probation journal, which looked at remote contact with the SU. The general finding was that outcomes were the same whether the SU was contacted remotely or face to face. For some of us, we have been able to work from home and contact SU's by telephone or CVP Video link. I have done this as a report writer and generally only need one contact to conduct the interview. For me and other colleagues working from home saves over £200.00 a month and saves a two and half hour a day round trip. This improves my quality of life and time with family. It also goes some way to addressing the pay cuts linked to a decade of austerity, The current pay freeze, inflation, higher taxes /cost of living, and effective pay loss over the last ten years. Where possible will those who can and prefer to work from home be allowed to do so.

The last two years have seen exceptional circumstances with people working from home more than they otherwise would. This period has allowed some time to evaluate our working practices. Taking everything into account we now have the smarter working policy which offers elements of both home and office working. This offers a good starting point and staff should review their own work pattern with their line manager to arrive at the best and most effective for each individual.

PQiP

Q. Would welcome a training approach that seeks to develop existing staff not solely focused upon PQiP learners. Online refresher courses on MyLearning are limited in their effectiveness as don't meet all learning styles.

We have transformed our model for learning and development to enable a comprehensive and modernised learning offer that delivers engaging content at the point of need and is accessible to all staff. The new model is evidence-based and adopts blended and flexible methods of learning and development to suit a range of different learning styles.

Managing People Convicted of Sexual Offences was developed specifically for practitioners with a minimum of two years’ experience. More recent learning products have included Prevent e-learning designed for the Probation staff and a new digital learning package on MAPPA. These are examples of us providing easy access to high-quality, practical learning resources that address existing staff concerns and support day-to-day tasks. Over the coming months, our focus turns to the rollout of the recently commissioned safeguarding and domestic abuse learning for all practitioners, in addition to commencing delivery of SEEDS 2 for Managers.

The new resources made available will support staff throughout their careers, with work underway to help ensure that all learning products form part of an overall curriculum of learning for probation staff. Learning for each role in probation is being mapped out to help to provide a more accessible CPD offer for staff, with the current learning offer being split out into mandatory, required, desirable for each role and identifying gaps in the current offer which will inform the strategic learning priorities for probation going forward. We are in the early stages of developing a CPD framework for the probation service and welcome discussion with the unions as this develops.

NPS Staffing Crisis

The new Chief Inspector of Probation published a fairly positive report on NPS in the North East yesterday, but once again it highlighted the staffing crisis largely brought about by TR:-

North East probation service delivering innovative work, despite heavy workloads

A probation service in the North East of England has been commended for its strong leadership and the innovative way it supports individuals to move away from further offending. The North East Division of the National Probation Service (NPS) supervises almost 19,000 high-risk offenders across a large area that stretches from the Scottish border to The Wash in Lincolnshire.

HM Inspectorate of Probation conducted a routine inspection of the North East Division of the NPS and looked at 10 aspects of its work. The Inspectorate has given the Division an overall ‘Good’ rating, its second-highest mark.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “Leaders in the North East Division of the NPS have a clear vision and strategy to deliver a quality service, and this has been communicated well to staff and key stakeholders. However, the Division is not always able to achieve this ambition because of staff shortages and high workloads.”

There is a lack of qualified probation officers across England and Wales, and inspectors found significant shortages across this Division too. Restrictions to local recruitment have further hampered efforts to place newly qualified officers in the offices where they are most needed.

Mr Russell said: “Despite staff shortages and some heavy workloads, staff across the Division take the time to develop professional relationships with the individuals under their supervision. If individuals missed appointments or broke the rules of their orders, staff did excellent work to engage individuals again and get them back on track.”

Inspectors found the Division offers a comprehensive range of services to individuals to support their rehabilitation. Pioneering initiatives include ‘Project Beta’, a collaboration between HM Prison and Probation Service, Durham County Council and Darlington Borough Council. The project works with individuals who are leaving prisons across the North East to help ensure they enter stable accommodation on release to provide a foundation for beginning a life free from crime. Inspectors also noted a network of community hubs in Cleveland has supported women to move away from crime and reoffending.

The Division has also been proactive in addressing gaps in its services. Probation staff wanted to strengthen their work with sexual offenders so set up additional training and a library of resources. Staff can now work with this complex and challenging group of offenders with greater expertise and confidence.

Work with victims of serious crime was found to be of a good standard. The Division runs a statutory scheme that provides victims with updates on the perpetrator’s sentence and gives them an opportunity to contribute their views on release plans. Contact with victims was timely and supportive in nearly nine out of 10 inspected cases, and victims received clear communications throughout the course of the sentence. However, inspectors found a small number of victims were not contacted about the scheme; the Inspectorate is now encouraging the Division to make sure all eligible victims are approached.

Inspectors found the overall quality of work with individuals under supervision was generally good, but some aspects require improvement.

Mr Russell said: “The Division needs to take a more robust approach to risk management in order to keep potential and actual victims safe. In a third of inspected cases, the risk assessments did not contain enough information about who might be at risk of harm from the individual under supervision and the exact nature of that risk. For example, some assessments overlooked victims of previous offences.”

The Inspectorate has made seven recommendations to improve the quality of the Division’s work.

Mr Russell added: “There is much to commend in the innovative and proactive leadership of the North East division of the NPS. Taking the opportunity to learn from this inspection will enable the division to further improve its service delivery.”

--oo00oo--

A few weeks ago a question on Facebook sought to address the staffing problem and the responses might prove enlightening, not just to the MoJ as they beaver away in earnest on the new probation model, but also to those currently contemplating a career in this line of work:-

What would it take to convince you to return to probation or retain you as a member of frontline probation staff if you are thinking of rejoining or leaving? If you are temping what would encourage you to move from temping to permanent work? 

A parking space would be a start.

Ditto.

I would want more pay and manageable caseload but that's a pipe dream.

I was recently tempted back to a permanent PO post from agency, as they’ve agreed to give me extended leave (unpaid), to enable me to maintain flexibility to xxxxxx each year. I feel very lucky - have yet to see how the reduced income will impact though!

I’d like that. To spend more time xxxxxxxxx.

Definitely. Ill health and the privatisation made me re-evaluate life’s priorities .. go for what makes you happy and live your best life. x

Yes time to re-evaluate definitely.

Reduced stress helps! X

Yes. I get told by friends that stress can kill even. I’m XX. If I early retired this year I’d only get £XX a year pension. I’m looking into flexible retirement. I’m XX this year and no matter what pension is - at 60 I’m going to early retire.

I agree totally .. my plan is to retire early and move to Xxxxxxxx full-time, where the cost of living is much lower. xx

More official recognition, less of a blame culture and less aggressive intervention into private life - needing to seek managerial permission before needing to do virtually anything outside of work, excessive vetting, social media embargoes etc.

More manageable workloads. No more weekly emails saying this that or the other is missing or out of date. Not having to wait two months for an OHA. More facilities time for reps. A less draconian absence management policy.

To be honest nothing would tempt me to move from agency to permanent. I work part time- take a month off Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxx, as well as other shorter bits of leave - have a degree of independence and autonomy - which also allows me to work in different places. I’m mortgage free so have few financial commitments and retire in 2021! For others I would suggest a robust WMT, flexible hours and technology to work from home - parity re conditions - parking - reopening offices - ongoing training!

I forgot about the WMT- not fit for purpose.

I forgot about the no bullying!

Workload, by which I mean LESS assessments. OASys tells us nothing that we do not know in advance. What EXACTLY is SARA for? Why ARMS? Still more pay, lets get back what we lost since 2012. Less counting things, more time with people. If we have to be civil servants how about non contributory pension and retirement at 60?

My thoughts exactly. Don't forget VISOR! Another useless tool we don't need, we don't want!

Yeah, that too.

Oh and RSR! Fill out this form that tells us that serious re-offending is very rare. Well ain't that a surprise!

I’m a temp and no price to go permanent would be enough. X

I have been banging the ViSOR drum for years! Hopefully this will be the end of it once and for all.

Totally agree about SARA. Utterly pointless. 

Fingers crossed but I doubt it as it's about us doing the police's work for them, same as for the ARMS!

I never look at it

I have seen it and the bulk of the info on there is supplied by us anyway! It’s completely unnecessary and even if it was imperative, access should have been granted without vetting. I cannot explain how much upset and concern this caused amongst some of my colleagues.

I don’t look at SARA.

They are ALL pointless. OASYs takes hours. OGRS takes five minutes. Scores are always very close. Do an OGRS. Ask a question covering all the areas in OASYs Use those as the basis of a sentence plan done via the web. SORTED.

It seems to be widely agreed that SARA is useless.

Agree.

Is temping much more money?

Not really when you take in to account no annual leave or sickness pay. However, I prefer the autonomy - the feeling that if I’m unhappy there is a plethora of other jobs in the sector. I also think you have more authority when it comes to flexible working - I do condensed hours with Xxxxxxx’s off. I have done 2 spells permanent and 2 spells temping. I really would not consider permanent work again.

The RSR is not significantly different in what it looks at than what you get from an OGRS. The only time it is ever different is for sex offenders, when it increases the numbers.

My take from Court work. Can we ditch the EPF? Unless the person is out of area, this is a waste of time. If people are from out of area, let us just call it an Accredited Programme and the other area can figure out which, according to what they have. Could we get rid of RAR? Not an effective way of supervising anyone. It can result in someone receiving a minimal service even if their circumstances change and mean they need more support. The considerations when doing a report on someone should focus on *if* they need Probation intervention and what sort would help the most. There is no such thing as a catch-all, one-size-for-all intervention.

SARA? Well, it helps you remember what areas can be relevant to domestic abuse and its causes, but the practitioner is still the one deciding the risk.

What’s EPF?

Effective Proposal Framework, which must be done before doing the proposal on your reports, including before delivering any stand down reports.

Pay according to years experience and holidays to match. I know that’s not fair on permanent staff but it’s what I would push for on an individual basis. Anything less - no thanks. Temping has saved my mental health and enabled me to continue to work as an OM. At the end of the day, I’ve been able to carry on working on the job I love and serve the community.

My mental health is certainly suffering. I’m stressed re workload. Not fit for purpose WMT and how we are all being treated. And made to feel we are to blame for being stressed and not being able to manage that.

Nonsense emphasis on ‘resilience’.

Left for YOT - not sure anything would tempt me back, especially not as YOT matched my NPS salary and to return would put me back on bottom of NPS scale. Had forgotten what being appreciated for work effort was like as not had that for years in probation.

Sounds like you are much happier.

Well if a lot changed maybe you could be swayed.

Odd. As a seconded PO in Xxxxxxxx YOT l was treated with contempt. As were all the staff. So happy to have a way back.

This is second time in YOT as had previous secondment to different YOT. Welcomed and valued by both. Current YOT has just taken on ex-probation officers with others having been seconded to that YOT.

So how about career progression? Training etc. Those who are PSOs would you like to train to be a PO with no loss of pay or maybe a bit on top? How about the creation of Senior Practitioner posts on the same points as SPOs? Management training for POs? Transfer without penalty? If we don’t ask we won’t get.

Some good ideas there, especially the Sr Practitioner posts.

I’m a big supporter of SP roles as we are not all cut out or want to be managers but certainly know our onions. I also think that not developing the PSO role to enable movement is a travesty.

I’d rather stick pins in my eyes than be a manager. But senior practitioner role sounds an excellent idea.

All social workers have senior practitioners posts and when I started as a P.O. the only route in was with a social work qualification.

Yes all of the above! We need more emphasis on progression through OM skills not management. So if u have done a counselling course - that ought to lead somewhere rather than nowhere. I’m not interested in management, I see that as a separate career. Or, make managers carry a caseload to make it more integrated.

It’s so so sad we won’t be able to do a stint in programmes now. I want group work skills! I want skills in rehabilitation. I want to be coached in rehab skills and have people actually interested in how I work in supervision. I know how to risk manage, but the real practise improvement - no one seems to care.

Sorry to rant - but when inspectors look at our cases they care what happens in sessions. Managers don’t really. We all know that that is the point of our work. Practitioners have to scrabble around digging up old worksheets from 20 years ago to actually structure their sessions. We ought to have ready access to these as well as a comprehensive partnerships directory which is updated on a six monthly basis in every office. Also: every new case needs to be brought before a weekly allocation meeting so they can get partnership appointments booked in from the word go. I know this is not strictly speaking about career progression but I’m just putting an idea out.

Trouble is, all of this gets in the way of doing assessments.

I'd say that as far as I’m aware it does in the NPS but in London CRC and TV there is at least, in recent times, a genuine concern about trying to improve quality at the coal face after most staff made clear their dissatisfaction with command and control targets obsessed approaches. I’d have liked the sort of innovation now being rolled out to have happened sooner but contract times have been shortened and reliable systems take time to develop and roll out. However, I really don’t want the good progress in certain areas - particularly in advances in tools and technologies - to be lost as progress has been hard won and involved many dedicated practitioners. Some of the best stuff has just started to gain some traction not least due to a change in senior management direction but also it is evident that the green shoots of what we might want are evident and mostly welcomed and I’m relatively hard to convince. I would like NPS colleagues to benefit from the best of what has been developed and available. There is an opportunity to improve things across the board.

What both NPS and CRC desperately need are well trained staff both PSOs, POs, SPO and hopefully SPs and certainly something suitably creative in respect of PSOs who all need to feel positive about their employers, leaders, and newly motivated to do the job they were trained to do in the way that is best not directed by faceless bureaucrats.

As a PSO I’d have appreciated the opportunity to train as a PO - as did many highly qualified PSOs in my region - but when we were told we’d have to pay for our own ‘top up’ modules none of us had odd 2 grand to spare.

Exactly. Many would do it but not at their own expense.

I’m doing it now at my own expense but gaining the modules via an Xxxxxxx from Xxxxxxx Uni, hence a huge student loan. At least this way I’ll get a Masters at which point I’ll walk out of Probation. I think what was so difficult for us CRC PSOs was the knowledge that NPS PSOs don’t face the same financial penalty. I really must leave this group - I sound like a moaning old git, and I’m not! I’m very peaceful but this second kick in the teeth for programmes has just destroyed my love for this job.

You don’t sound like that. I’m really angry about it.

My CRC has management training, CPD, innovation, opportunity to have input in how the organisation ran, Associate Tutors roles for operational staff who wanted a chance to deliver programmes and brush up on rehabilitation skills and CA's who wanted skills and experience to apply for operations roles, to lead or work on projects ..... I hope these innovations don't get lost in the move and that the new NPS takes forward all of the positives from both current NPS and CRCs. However, Programmes Rule!

Easier application process rather than civil service competencies that bear no resemblance to the actual job!!

So true. Excellent point.

Better pay, free parking and flexible working and I would consider coming back

Better pay, flexible working including working from home at times and free parking, plus team building.

Easier application process.

As PSO with ten plus years experience it’s frustrating that you have to have a degree to firstly apply for PQUiP. It seems that experience and consistent good/outstanding appraisals doesn’t mean much!

Less hours.

Competent and trained management without a bias of who you are mates with. Work progression routes and personal development. Investment in staff.

Generic case loads like there was back in circa 2003-2007 so there's a mixture of different types of cases - makes the job more emotionally/mentally sustainable.

Guaranteed pay increase every year. And the money owed from the pay freeze. Not too much to ask is it?!

Unfortunately the reality of modern day NPS is not conducive to such cosy discussions. Any such suggestions are usually ignored. Civil Service if that is what is coming is not a panacea. It is very much top down command and control. There is little scope for discussion mostly because purse strings are held tightly at the very top.

For a friend of mine who wanted to get into general office admin work (band 2) they laughed at the wages and told me not for that - would rather stay doing retail on 45 hours a week and get 15k more per year.

For me the only thing would be to put wages up by at least 15% (I know it's gotta be a followed process) but I will be honest I have had enough of it. The only reason I'm still here is the pay cheque at the end of the month. And yes I am looking elsewhere. There are lots of issues and not enough solutions.

Essential car user allowance.

A welfare support system that supported people rather than punish them. Services that I could refer people into. Quality housing, drug and mental health support that is not so cash strapped that most "Assessments" come down to "how do we deny this poor bastard any help". 

Less, no sorry, NO obsession with public safety. There is a part of the Criminal Justice system which should prioritise the good that a person can do rather than the bad which they have. Where better than the Probation Service.

An obsession with getting alongside people rather than alongside a computer to fill in another assessment. Some distance from the Prison Service and the Justice Ministry to allow us space to breath and be the Service we were and can be again.

Some or all of that would mean that I could enjoy my last 10 years in the service, rather than spend every birthday trying to calculate if I can survive THIS year on a reduced pension or do I have to stick it out longer. Not a lot to ask is it?

Less targets and being allowed to get on with the job and doing the work that matters, work with clients.

Being able to work from home is a huge bonus. Flexible working. Having fabulous colleagues and managers.

I am glad that senior managers are finally starting to recognise these issues. They never seemed too bothered about retaining staff, which has had a catastrophic effect. Hopefully they are realising that their methods of control and direction are not working, and that there should be more ‘carrot’ than ‘stick’! For me they need to offer more creative and flexible working options, we have the IT to support that now. They need to look at particular offices or areas that struggle to recruit and retain and consider the issues and how to encourage people to want to work there. A senior practitioner role is an excellent idea, otherwise there are limited career progression opportunities for those not interested in management. Make improvements to OASys/all the assessments that we have to do, to avoid constant duplication of information. The focus should be on working with people, having the time to do meaningful work with them instead of prioritising ‘targets’.

The way it used to be. Working with a smile on your face. Reduced blame culture manageable time frames. Having your own secretary who felt valued and personal to you and colleagues. Parking - enough staff to share the workload - managers who were not guided by performance targets - professional autonomy - and overall respect from employers - but from what I hear that’s going to be a hard one to achieve when it all gets lumped back together. When I heard the news I sort of did a little flip. But as this goes on and I hear the rumblings from the jungle commonly known as the ministry of magic! Well I’m not filled with enthusiasm and glee.

I left in 2016. After the split there seemed to be a move to reduce everything to the 'quickest' or 'most efficient' way of doing things to the point where the value in doing them at all was lost. We used to stand up for ourselves - if a Court asked for a PSR on a DV case with an unrealistic turnaround then (if we knew a thorough risk assessment couldn't be done in that time) we as professionals would say no and we'd be backed up in doing so. I think we need a clear culture of who we are and what we do and we need senior officers to also know that too and who will stick up for the service when needed (I'm still saying we even 3 years after leaving!). I think probation is going to need to prove itself - be clear about its values and what it stands for and what as a profession it offers - before many would go back. That will take time.

Also, having left, you soon realise quite how bad the pay and career progression is in probation. It's a fairly flat structure with not many opportunities. I left as a PO and would need to go back in as well above SPO grade to make it worth my while. It was never about the money, but the jobs you guys do, you deserve more that's for sure.

Responses to Demise of TR 2

Despite being a hot Friday with many people either on holiday or heading off, there was a veritable storm of media activity yesterday at the prospect of yet more changes to the probation landscape. Gauke describing TR as 'ambitious and innovative' is of course civil service speak for a complete disaster and the closest we will ever get to the government admitting as such. Nevertheless, TR is dead and I guess what is being proposed is constrained, as with everything else, by Brexit and absolutely no parliamentary time being available.        

This blog has received over 10,000 hits in two days, thus confirming its continuing place and relevance as a platform for news and discussion as we approach what will almost inevitably prove to be another sham 'consultation' and reorganisation. It will be stressful and worrying to many and do nothing for morale I fear, but for those of us who refuse to give up on ideals that we know lie at the core of the probation ethos, the fight for its future as a distinct profession and endeavour will continue. Where better to start then than with Rob Allen's take on things:-    

Back to the Future? Where Next for Probation.

What to make of today’s announcement about the future shape of probation services? Is it as Russell Webster pronounced the end of Transforming Rehabilitation? Or is the foreshortening of existing private probation contracts merely a case of reculer pour mieux sauter? All bets are off of course if Labour come to power. They have pledged a unified public-sector service with Lord Ramsbotham currently mulling the best way to organise it. But today, the Government offers the opportunity for anyone to pitch in ideas for the best way forward if they stay at the helm. Although the Consultation invites views on 17 specific questions, it will not require too much creativity for answers to propose more macro level suggestions about how to rescue probation from the mire.

Despite many calls for the public National Probation service to be reunited with the Community Rehabilitation Companies, this seems to be happening only in Wales. In England, 10 new CRC’s will be contracted to replace the current 20. The MoJ say they’ll explore with the market how to establish a more effective commercial framework which better takes account of changes in demand for probation and ensures providers are adequately paid to deliver core services. It’s possible that such exploration will find no workable framework other than reunification. But I doubt it.

For one thing, big beasts G4S and SERCO may be allowed back on the scene. Although still under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office for overcharging on tagging contracts, both companies seem to be back in the contracting fold, relieved perhaps to have missed out on the embarrassment of TR1 and eager to show how they can learn from its mistakes.

More significantly, privatisation is now hardwired into conservative thinking. The party’s new vice chairman for policy, Chris Skidmore, was among those who has in the past argued that all prisons should be contracted out on a payment by results (PBR) basis. So too was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Liz Truss, who’ll have to sign the new probation arrangements off. Before doing so, she will surely want to reflect not only on private sector underperformance but on how little risk the businesses have taken on. We are told today that long-term trends in re-offending are substantially affecting providers’ payment-by results income, threatening to undermine the delivery of core services. Setting aside the fact that declining clear up rates should make it easier to reduce recorded reoffending, the limited impact on persistent and prolific offenders is one of the many disappointments of the TR scheme. If today may not mark the end of TR, it may be the demise of PBR, in this field at least.

What comes next? The Howard League are pushing a Scottish type arrangement which has a lot going for it - although they’ll need to re think their proposed 21 service delivery areas. Maybe because I used to be on the Youth Justice Board, I’ve always favoured an Adult Offending Team model along the lines of Youth Offending Teams (YOT’s). These local authority based multi-agency teams, developed in Tony Blair’s first term, partly in response to a damning critique from the Audit Commission, have by and large proved an effective model for diverting young people from crime, from prosecution and from custody.

This is surely the sort of approach we now need for adults. There’s scope for discussion about the role Police and Crime Commissioners might play in any new system and whether Adult Offending Teams should form part of a broader devolution of justice responsibilities and budgets to a more local, and locally accountable, level. This is just the kind of discussion we need to have now.

Rob Allen

Pick of the Week 50

Interesting to read how many criminal justice/probation practitioners disagree with each other about the parole process ref-Worboys. Is that indicative of a broken system or a widespread lack of understanding/knowledge?

*****
That's a good point to make, as you'd expect those working in the system to have a shared understanding of procedures, protocols and responsibilities. The constant chopping and changing of processes doesn't help, nor the loss of experienced hands. It can look like the chaos of Keystone Cops – full of well-meaning energy, but full of cross purposes.

*****
In the meantime various 'Think Tanks' are positioning something that is being branded as Justice Devolution and under its banner there is the chance of another Probation revolution ranging from complete privatisation of Probation services to various hybrids under various local umbrellas. And, I am not hearing any Probation lead on these matters. Again, I ask who is speaking for Probation, who are our leaders and what are they saying? Come on people, wake up, others are deciding your destiny.

*****
It’s the right move. There must be evidence to support prosecutions and all involved must remember its ‘innocent until proven guilty’ not the other way around. “Speaking as a cop, opposed to a citizen, I’m interested in crime. If it’s a long time ago, or it’s very trivial, or I’m not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I’m not going to spend a lot of resources on it. And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.”

*****
Unless it results in spousal assaults and/or sexual assault under a banner of misunderstandings. This woman is dangerous in her trivialisations and has obviously never been a victim. No wonder London crime rates are out of control when the governor tells her officers to dismiss sexualised behaviours. DV used to be termed 'a civil matter' until the law got wise. Shame on u Cressida.

*****
I agree with evidence based prosecution and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, but the timing of this policy is astounding. It was not taking the allegations of some of the victims (perhaps a presumption of misunderstanding or clumsy behaviour???) that has been the real root of the controversy surrounding the Warboys case. Perhaps it's an attempt of some sort to distance the Met from its failings with Worboys, but it's not the first controversial comments she's made in her short time in charge. Unfortunately, the devolution of justice issues to London will give her a far freer hand to impose her own ideology on the people of the capital. I think we'll be hearing from Cressida (and about her) on a pretty regular basis.

*****
Think what she says is eminently sensible and to attack her is hysterical. All she is saying is that she is only interested in behaviour that passes a criminal threshold, that actually breaches a law that's on the statue book. She rightly says treat all complainants with respect, listen to their complaint, investigate, gather evidence and then see if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. An allegation only becomes a fact if it's corroborated by evidence. What would you prefer? Trial based on allegations, or trial by evidence? Some Valentine cards may be unwelcome, but more likely the result of a misunderstanding than stalking or harassment.

*****
It's amazing how the demand for transparency with regard to the Parole Board is such an urgent priority, whilst all the failures of privatised probation services can be hidden away under the guise of corporate confidentiality. Transparency should be essential to all public services.

*****
Too much process and too many involved. The Worboys and the many other judicial challenges of Parole Board decision show that the Parole Board is not fit for making release decisions. Excepting whole life sentences, there should be fixed release dates for every prisoner. Recall periods should be in proportion to the sentence with a fixed release date, eg automatic release after a third of the remaining sentence period. Simple as.

*****
We have to accept that the Worboys decision was erroneous, but the Board generally do a good job. Some tinkering maybe around transparency and around allowing Boards to be chaired by lay people only under certain circumstances. That said, judges can make erratic chairs also. I know one who appears to sleep through most of proceedings. As much as I despise what has happened to legal aid, I fear that too much was used in paying so called 'independent psychologists' in this case.

*****
Fundamentally, the Parole Board must be doing a good job in evaluating risk if there is only a 1% chance of a parolee committing a further serious offence. The Worboy's case was more about the history of police failures to investigate at the outset and for Worboys to be charged by the CPS to adequately reflect the extent of his offending. Probation was also criticised over victim contact, but in fact all those who wanted to be kept informed were kept informed and those who did not wish victim contact had their wishes respected. The only mud thrown at probation related to some poorly drafted letters.

But as with other notorious cases – Harry Roberts with a parole tariff of 30 years spent 48 years in prison, released aged 78 – the reality is that the public would be quite content to see Worboys die in prison. It's not about future risks, it's about an enduring retribution. That's the irrationality at the heart of this case and no amount of tinkering with the Parole Board will prevent similar moral outrages in the future.

*****
The reconviction rates for serious offenders is low so Parole Board releases on the whole will always look like they’re “doing a good job”. There’s been many successful challenges of Parole Board decisions to not release. Worboys is the first challenge of a decision to release I think. It shows in too many instances Parole Board members are not suitably qualified to make release decisions. You really tell the difference when former judges, probation officers or psychologists are on the panel instead of the local butcher, baker or candlestick maker. An audit of paroled prisoners over the past 5 years would show there have been many, many dodgy Parole Board decisions, inc with illogical rationale and lack of information. This highly subjective process can be disbanded if every prisoner has a fixed released date. Not every country has a Parole Board.

*****
If you abolished indeterminate sentences, it would be compensated for by increasing the length of determinate sentences and we end up, like the US, imposing sentences of hundreds of years. Do you know of any country that does not make use of indeterminate sentences? How do they deal with heinous crimes?

*****
The IPP sentence was a move towards a ‘risk-based penal strategy’, with proportionality taking a back seat to public protection and future risk prediction. It is partly based on the US ‘3 strikes’ policy and it's heavy use of life sentences for a wide range of offences. So to the commenter above, we’re already following our friends across the pond. If the Parole Board system worked we wouldn’t have thousands of IPP’s languishing in prison many years over tariff. Indeterminate type sentences, quite legal under European law, could have fixed release dates and I question whether sentencing judges are happy knowing 15 years later flawed risk assessments will undermine the tariffs they set. 

There is not much point in parole and early release process when we have a prison system that can’t prepare people for release, a Parole Board that hasn’t the expertise and capacity to release, except serial rapists apparently, and a probation system that isn’t resourced to assist once released. We once abolished the death penalty, we ended the pre-90’s ‘one chance’ at parole, we did away with IPP sentences, and whole life sentences are now under scrutiny. There is an argument for an end to early parole and sentences without fixed release dates.

*****
Not every prisoner, probationer and hostel resident has psychological problems or personality disorders. The push to ‘screen’ all for PD without their knowledge is very concerning. So is the drive for PIPE prison wings and hostels which force individuals into psychological interventions to be released or be granted a hostel bed. How much is being spent on this PIPE rubbish? The only ones seeming to benefit are the psychologists!

*****
I absolutely agree re the psychologists benefiting. PD services seem to have created a whole new self-interested and self-absorbed industry. If you ask any MoJ/ NHS psychologist to assess someone for PD or anything else it seems they make it their purpose to find something to 'treat', despite their being very little treatment that service users will actually engage with.

*****
“PD” has become an industry unto itself. “PD” probation officers are running around generating importance for themselves. “PIPE” has become the buzzword for AP’s, which amounts to PSO’s having a group chat about once a week and an inexperienced psychologist telling them what they already know. 

Every offender on my caseload has been “screened in” (not be me) for “personality disorder”. None are aware they have been categorised for “PD” and are being discussed and assessed for psychological interventions (I’m not sure what is actually on offer). Most just need a job and a decent place to live! I get it, psychologist have to eat, but there’s probably more “PD” amongst the Probation managers!

*****
I agree with these sentiments. Probation has moved away from the social to the psychological, and people on our caseloads have been pathologised.

*****
10% of all Approved Premises and 50% of the female AP estate is provided by the Voluntary Sector a great team. Up until 45 years ago all Probation Hostels & Homes were provided and run by voluntary sector providers, some very small and local. It was not until legislation in the early 1970s that Probation Committees were first allowed to directly run Probation and Bail Hostels. Alongside the expansion of new Probation & Bail Hostels run by Probation Committees over the next 30 years, many previously voluntarily managed Probation Hostels were 'taken over' by the Probation Service and their assets absorbed in to the Crown Estate.

*****
This is good news but the demise of supported housing “hostels” and move-on accommodation is just as risky for Probation and the public. Two high risk of harm services have disappeared in my county with a loss of 24 bed spaces. Decent supported housing providers are being edged out of the market by profiteering companies, CRC writ large....

*****
Addiction defines a persons identity. It dictates what you do, and it's what you do that lays the fabrics and blocks that shape identity. The labels that are attached to an addict may compound things, but it's the addiction itself that creates the identity. Physical dependency is painful and traumatic, but short-lived, and the first necessary step to beating addiction. Staying clean is the complicated bit. A whole new identity is needed, a re-creation of the self. 

A three year programme as described above goes a very long way in addressing that need for a changed identity, it should be applauded, but there's also a concern for me. An addict can go to prison for three years, create a new identity for themselves, often a healthy one in the gym, stay off drugs the whole three years, but when that new-found identity is removed upon release, the familiar structures, the people gone that see you as your new identity defines you, many return to their old familiar self's and begin to use again. 

Spending three years in a community described above, helping to build that community, getting a sense of purpose and self worth, and doing so with a shared commonality with the others on the programme must certainly create that new identity. But it's only temporary and there must be a huge sense of loss when the time comes to move on. Those are dangers that I hope the programme can mitigate along the way, and I hope all that are lucky enough to be part of it really find it a life changing experience.

*****
Similar thoughts and I see value in the scheme as you do. For the majority though services need I think to focus on those issues in the local community which requires continuity of investment in community resources.

*****
No one saying anything about a connection between rising violent crime in London and the decimation of probation service as well as criminal breeding grounds that prisons have become? Cuts to public sector including the massive cuts to youth service and policing over past 10 years or so, social services and YOT's mean far less preventative work and opportunities to divert young people from crime. Social media and addiction of millions of young people to violent gaming is also playing a part. In addition reduction in time parents can spend with their children because they are having to work flat out to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Not rocket science really!

*****
Now then, MoJ, look what happens when you remove a vast swathe of experienced skilled professionals from the Probation & Prison Services... you have to pay some numpty £millions to "create" an algorithm that assesses risk. Remember OASys? That was a fuck up too. Will you ever learn? No! I can't wait to read MoJ's PR about lowest prisoner numbers since the beginning of time, etc etc etc, with Young Rory singing the praises.

*****
It's my view that the third sector and the private sector are just two heads of the same dog. They structure their corporate arrangements very similar, and reward those at the top with obscene amounts of money and associated benefits. The third sector get government funding, EU funding, Lottery funding, have reduced business rates and tax and VAT breaks. They also benefit greatly from a huge amount of unpaid labour carried out by volunteers. Yet they're still prepared to involve themselves in anything that can bring in a few quid despite what reputational damage it attracts. The work programme being just one. The private sector get millions from government contracts, local councils, PCCs. They're allowed to limit their liabilities despite the vast amounts of money that they pay to shareholders, and can hide pretty much anything they want through a corporate confidentiality clause. 

It doesn't seem to matter that every inspection and report produced shows damning failures and poor practice, it's always a cry for more money. More, more, more! It's high time the government gave both sectors a good hard kick up the arse, and remind them that when they're using public funds they need to be honest brokers, and deliver the services that are being paid for in the way they need to be provided. TR is in its fourth year, the conversation should be about how to improve services and working conditions, and not about how the spoils should be shared out.

*****
Police cuts are of course going to have an impact on crime. But the rise of violent crime in London shouldn't be seen just as a criminal justice issue. It's the amalgamation and the coming together of years of shite social policies, and our neoliberal right wing Conservative government should harbour much of the blame. Much of the explanations been given relate to gangs and drugs. But if you have a drug policy that leaves drugs in the domain of criminal fraternities, then the relationship between gangs and drugs will always exist. But it's education and housing policy too. Leaving school with few or no qualifications from a class size of 40 and over pupils and living somewhere like Broadwater farm or Tower Hamlets is likely to leave the option of benefits or a zero hour contract at KFC.

Housing is a national issue, but a huge problem in London. But to raise funds many local councils are selling off social housing to the private sector. That's resulting in high concentrations of the poorest and socially deprived people being pushed into certain areas. Some call it social cleansing, but it certainly creates ghettos and large areas where social deprivation is the common defining factor. It's not drugs and gangs, just as its not drugs, drones and mobile phones that's caused the prison crisis. It's failed social and political policy. It's austerity and the decisions that are being taken to combat vicious cuts, and the government need to accept resolution will only come from being more socially oriented because the free market isn't going to fix it, the free market approach is part of the problem.

*****
T'ain't rocket science, is it? Poor social policy, closure of youth services, schools further and further away from home, bedroom tax breaks up communities, social care services decimated, family centres closing etc etc etc. Whaddaya know, an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime. What are the causes? Too much UK money going into the hands of a small number of individuals instead of into public services. And if I hear 'legal highs' blamed for anything else, I am going to scream.

*****
I used to work in Approved Premises before taking early retirement. Over the years (1998 - 2016) I attended many different training courses including OASys. It was on this course that I pointed out that at Approved Premises we occasionally accepted individuals on bail who had no previous convictions and were pleading 'not guilty' to their alleged offence. Despite this they were still subjected to an assessment process which labelled them as an 'offender'. The course tutor was unable to give a satisfactory answer. I always thought that Probation staff should be non judgement.

*****
I'm sure prison officers on the landings, already struggling with understaffing, violence, drugs, and concerned for their safety, will really appreciate trips back and forward to the office to input data in real time. Where does all this data end up?

*****
There isn't a lack of information, there's a lack of rehabilitation. Reform must be music in the ears of IT consultants. It's the old mantra of doing the same things all over again and expecting a different result. Bring in Cambridge Analytica - they know a thing or two about influencing people.

*****
A realistic quantity of quality time in contact with clientele is absolute bottom line for rehabilitation. Then by all means angst about definitions and achievement of "quality". Then fart-arse about with technology if you must. Sigh.

*****
I find it pretty amazing that Amber Rudd identifies drugs as being one of the main drivers for the creation of gangs and rising violent crime, and yet say nothing on how she intends to tackle that driver. Drugs are here, and they're not going to go away. Drugs create all kinds of problems and simply taking an ideological view that says "drugs are harmful so we won't tolerate them", is frankly to my mind idiotic and irresponsible. 

There will always be an illegal trade in drugs as there is with their legalised counterparts tobacco and alcohol, but the war on drugs is a war that doesn't need to be fought. Take them out of the hands of criminals, take the huge revenues they generate and the potential business opportunities available and do good things for society. Be pragmatic about drugs, accept they're a problem that's not going away and manage that problem in the best way possible.

*****
This is increasingly tiresome. Reams and reams of paper to tell us that what we all said would happen has happened and that the train crash we all predicted has taken place. Another enquiry taking months to tell us what we already know.

The problem with Probation is that the Prison management that took it over disrespected it, devalued it and mismanaged it. Carter put the wrong people in charge and they screwed it up completely. Nothing more to say. The solution is to extricate Probation from the grip of the Prison Service and allow it to operate independently. That will at least give us a chance. Whilst the Prison Service management continue to see command and control as a means of managing the Probation arm of the HMPPS and whilst those same people think that the private sector have anything to offer Probation, the whole ethos of the model will remain compromised and beyond repair. This was said BEFORE this shit storm started and they all know it.

*****
It's just a process of marking time until the contracts can be re-tendered. Halfway through now, keep talking about it and the seven years will soon pass. Maybe what should be being considered is the cost of probation contracts next time around. It's bound to be double if not more then the original arrangements or there won't be many willing to take them on.

*****
"An important aspect of self-legitimacy is the extent to which practitioners feel that they are enabled and supported by their organisation and that they internalise the values represented by their organisation (Bradford and Quinton 2014). In our view, the current situation means that the self-legitimacy of many practitioners is, at the very least, in some doubt. This in turn may lower morale and foster discontent with the quality services provided to those under supervision".

A few days ago, under pressure, I cancelled an appointment to visit a vulnerable, traumatised woman in prison, in order to get ahead of the "performance" priorities. I didn't seek authority for this decision, and when I mentioned it to my manager, it was nodded through. After an afternoon battering a keyboard, and hitting every performance target I had, I came home feeling... like a bit of me had died. Lord knows how my client feels, I don't, seeing as I wasn't there.

*****
This blog post more than most struck a chord with me. I did not start in the Probation profession to make my fortune, I had a zeal to make a tangible difference in all quarters that we were tasked with. I valued being a part of a cohesive profession that reached beyond itself and sought to connect with all who had similar ambitions. I was interested in creating a relationship with the people I worked with and engaging with the evidence of what worked. I valued the experience of those before me and learning from them. I valued professional supervision and on-going professional development. My skills after a decade and more of working with people is way beyond what I could have imagined when I started. When we talk about culture, it is hard to reconcile my ideas with making a profit and dividend payments to shareholders. Culture and values matter to me and those who we serve I believe.

*****
As a client of the probation service, this article has given me a very valuable insight into the difficulties faced by those who want to actually help people better their lives. It must be soul destroying to be under the influence of such regressive policies. Hats off to anyone who sticks at it. Surely the tide will have to turn soon.

*****
Attachment, responsibility, purpose, are the cornerstones for a reasonably stable life. For some, those things can't be achieved with other people. There can be many reasons why that might be so. Todays blog reminds of a book I once read many years ago (80s I think), called life after life. I've had a quick search this morning but can't find it, though there seems to be quite a few with the same title. It was really a collection of observational studies on half a dozen people that had served life sentences and how they coped (or didn't) upon release. One of the people in the book was a woman, who on release quickly found her life in chaos. She was recalled many times and the time spent on recall surpassed the time served on her original sentence. 

After serving 7years on her last recall, someone, perhaps her probation officer, suggested she might like to keep a pet, and she found herself with a dog. From that moment on her life changed, no more chaos, no more offending, and no more recalls. A sense of contentment or even happiness perhaps? Whatever it was, the animal had the most amazing and positive impact on the woman's life.

*****
If vetting is being linked to the issuing of laptops, then it would be legitimate to question if it's the integrity of the IT systems and software that's driving the need for vetting and not the user.

*****
I cannot think why. If it is, then as usual the staff are punished and made to jump through hoops for probation’s failures. Vetting or not, there will always be one person that leaves their laptop on the train! And Vetting doesn’t make IT more secure, not so long ago I recall reading about a number of police prosecuted for sharing PNC details. They were vetted! Imagine what your probation Vetting coordinators sitting in your offices will be doing with all your confidential information about you and your family?

*****
Personal view only, and it relates to purpose and identity, both of which I feel probation has struggled with in recent years. If probation is an organisation that provides assistance and support to help offenders steer their lives back onto the right track and help them maintain a stable existence (as probation once did) then vetting is not going to be an issue beyond the normal CRB check. However, once probation positions itself, and more and more sells itself, as an agency of public protection, then it becomes an 'agent of the state' and can have no real objection to being subjected to the same criteria that the state impose on other public protection agencies such as police. 

If you see probation as a service that assists offenders, helps with rehabilitation and are of course "constantly mindful" of public protection, I think you have reason to complain about the level of vetting. If however you view probation as a service of public protection that also provides some assistance where possible to the offenders you manage, then I think you have to accept the level of vetting other public protection agencies are subjected to.

*****
Canada is in the process of legalising illicit drugs, and the Republic of Ireland, a country where possession of a condom makes you a sinner, is considering legalisation of cannabis and allowing Dutch style coffee shops. Andrew Boff the very right wing Conservative member of the London Assembly has caused a huge row by calling for the legalisation of drugs in response to Amber Rudds violent crime strategy. Does the legalisation and regulation of drugs make a society more tolerant? No it doesn't. It makes it more responsible. How, in probation for example, can you help someone with a drug problem if disclosure of use is also the admission of an offence? 

Drugs are a blot on society, but only because they're management, supply, constitution and regulation are left in the control of criminal gangs. The USA's prohibition era is a perfect example of what happens when you ban supply but demand remains. There will always be a demand for drugs, and a big demand, so there will always be someone prepared to supply them. It's the basic economic model of supply and demand that our conservative government are so proud to boast about. Accept the problem and take ownership of it, otherwise it will just get worse. It's not being tolerant about drug use, it's being responsible about the impact drugs have on society.

*****
Not a vote winner the liberal government in Canada were deemed a few years ago to have no chance however standing on a platform including legalising cannabis soon changed that. For the record it is due to come into force in July and the person who has been in charge of implementation is the ex chief police officer of Toronto.

****
I don't see why an organised pilot and investigation into the pros and cons of drug legalisation could not be conducted in the UK. Select three areas defined as socially deprived, that already have a drug problem and high unemployment, allow local government in those areas to produce and sell cannabis in an organised way for 18 months, and then assess what impact it has had socially and economically on that area. I think the economic benefits would be considerable to areas like Blackpool, Grimsby or Sunderland, and the information gathered on drug related crime and unemployment would help inform national drug policy. If no benefits are realised, then just pull the plug.

*****
Any legalisation of drugs would have to remain under strict State control. Privatising or outsourcing any aspect of drug legalisation to corporations such as Sodexo, Interserve, G4s etc, would just be the same as handing back control to the criminals.

*****
I'm very disappointed with the response today's blog has attracted. Every probation officer in the country must have a case load of people that have drug issues. But no one has anything to say. It's very different if the blog is about pay and conditions, privatisation, or being let down by the unions. Everyone's shouting then. You're in it for the money, or you're in it for the cause. It's the safe place, or make a difference. Everyone makes there own mind up.

*****
There’s two comments above, perhaps from probation officers, and mine makes 3. I think it’s only nowadays PO’s are straight-laced-stick-up-the-backside types. Many of the older generation were the weed smoking type so I’m sure many have a view on this issue. In terms of the article at hand, I have mixed feelings. On one hand I support drug legalisation, taxation, etc. On the other, I do not believe it is necessarily the best way to resolve the drug problem. Legal or illegal, drugs are here to stay, but if we can’t have a proper debate about making alcohol illegal then how can we debate making drugs legal. 

I think the way forward is in pilot cities for cannabis legalisation in franchise “coffee shops” and a plant or two permitted for home growing. Other drugs may be available on prescription, such as cannabis oil, heroin, etc, but I don’t think we’ll be reverting back to opium dens any time soon. What I don’t support is this myth that legalising drugs will reduce violent crime because there are many other factors involved. This is political bullshit and not a basis for legalising drugs. Amber Rudd is talking out her backside, as is this silly Adam Smith Institute. For the record in some areas you’re more likely to be mugged buying a bottle of wine from your local offy where all the pissheads congregate than from your dealer who discreetly delivers to your house after hitting him up on Snapchat. Nobody is “going down dark alleyways”!!

*****
An appalling chapter in the history of the British Criminal Justice System and in UK politics. Disgraceful not only because it happened but because it took so many ignorant people to undermine the existing professional organisation. They were warned again and again but wanted their nose in the trough without any comprehension of what was at stake. Carter, Wheatley, Spurr and the King Rat himself, Failing Grayling - all complicit in the debacle and compromised by the obvious inadequacies of Prison Service management. Right wing thinking revealed again for what it is; concrete thinking, prejudicial and, fundamentally, stupid.

*****
In the light of the many reports, whether official, anecdotal or whistleblower, let us be totally & brutally clear what the TR project has led to. It's not - and was never - about the provision of an effective service; its not about the rehabilitation of those sent to work with probation staff by the Courts, either directly or via prison; and its not about having a skilled professional workforce. It is THIS: "All CRC owners inspected were concerned about the financial instability and viability of their own contracts with the MoJ." Accountancy, NOT accountability.

*****
After surviving 3 years of MTCnovo I thought I was unshockable. Yesterday was the first day I have felt ashamed to be working as a probation officer. All offender managers have been instructed to inform their people managers (SPOs in MTCnovo parlance) how many service users report after 7pm and how often. Then we heard rumours of the bombshell - evening accredited groupwork programmes will not be offered by London CRC in the coming weeks/months.

For any service user sentenced to an accredited Programme Requirement who is in employment, the expectation will be that the offender manager will make an immediate application to the Court for amendment of the Requirement as unworkable. If true, and my sources are reliable, this is truly a cynical cost-cutting exercise. Cynical because if they have any sense they must know that there will be "blow-back" from the Magistracy/Judiciary. They may be forced to back pedal, but in the interim they will save themselves a few more shekels to earn their annual bonuses.

Offender Managers in London CRC from the 1st May will no longer have face to face contact with our administrators when they move to a central admin hub in Bromley. We were not consulted about this move, it was yet another diktat. The fact that the powers-that-be are looking at how many service users report after 7pm strongly suggest they will close some offices at 7pm but maybe have regional offices for reporting after 7pm?

I thought the point of TR and the involvement of the private sector was to be "consumer" oriented, providing an improved flexible service compared with the dead hand of the inflexible public sector. Instead I am seeing the dismantling of a once proud service before my eyes like a slow motion car crash. God help us all.