2019 Applications to terminate IPP licences
31.—(1) Where an offender qualifies to make an application to terminate their licence under section 31A of the 1997 Act(1), the offender may make a direct application to the Board or apply through the Secretary of State.
(2) Where an offender makes a direct application, the Board must serve the application on the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State must serve any reports or evidence as directed by the Board.
(3) Where an application is made through the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State must serve any reports or evidence at the same time as sending the application to the Board.
(4) Where the Board receives an application, either from the offender directly or through the Secretary of State, a panel appointed under rule 5(5) must consider the application in accordance with section 31A(4) of the 1997 Act.
(5) In considering the application under paragraphs (2) or (3), the panel may—
(a)make a decision on the papers, or(b)direct that the application should be decided by a panel at a hearing.
(6) Where a panel considers the application on the papers or at a hearing, it must decide to— (a)terminate the offender’s licence;(b)amend the offender’s licence in accordance with section 31(3) of the 1997 Act, or(c)refuse the application.
(7) Where a decision is made by a panel under paragraph (6), the Board must record that decision in writing with reasons for that decision, and that record must be provided to the offender and Secretary of State within 14 days of the decision.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1038/article/31/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2019/1038/contents/made
Spot lights on the Parole Board
Chief Executive of the Parole Board
Martin Jones Talks us through a number of important changes designed to improve the parole system
New Rules – new challenges
This is a guest blog by Martin Jones, Chief Exec of the Parole Board.
On 22 July new Parole Board Rules came into effect.
These rules introducd a number of important changes that will seek to improve the parole system. Perhaps most importantly, these rules introduced the new reconsideration mechanism.
Having now spent nearly four years at the Parole Board, I have seen significant change and challenges. Some may be surprised to hear that I welcome further change to the system, but I do. I believe these changes are important for maintaining confidence in the parole system.
The Parole Board make over 25,000 decisions each year. We seek to make all those decisions carefully, having considered hundreds of pages of evidence, and in many cases detailed oral evidence. According to all the data I have seen, and the hundreds of decisions I have read, I believe our decisions are sound. However, given the scale, complexity and nature of the cases we cannot be complacent.
Under the new system a party to the case — either the prisoner or the Secretary of State — may make an application for the case to be reconsidered by the Parole Board. The bar for the application to be successful is a high one and is similar to the grounds for a judicial review. The Board’s decision, even if unpopular or controversial, must be found to be irrational, or procedurally unfair for it to be looked at again. The new procedure will apply to “classic parole cases” (indeterminate cases, and other cases where initial release is at the discretion of the Parole Board), but it will not apply to determinate recall cases.
Under the new rules there will be a tight 21-day time limit for applications. I am pleased there is this strict deadline, because prisoners, their families and victims need certainty of the outcome at the earliest opportunity. Once a reconsideration application is received, a judge will review it and respond swiftly. Where they find that the initial decision is irrational or procedurally unfair, the case will be considered afresh. I suspect that the number of cases that may need to be re-opened will be small.
I know there are some commentators who believe that the new mechanism is unnecessary, and perhaps an over-reaction to recent difficult cases. My assessment is that maintaining confidence that we have a fair and effective parole system is so important that we should embrace change. We know that those released on licence by the Parole Board rarely commit serious offences after release. It makes little sense for people who have committed very serious offences and are considered a risk to the public to be automatically released without any consideration by an expert independent body focused on assessment of risk.
We also know that change can be positive. On 22 May 2018, the Parole Board were able to start publishing decision summaries to explain our reasons in individual cases — as previously called for by the Board. Despite initial fears, we have now provided 1,588 summaries, primarily to victims. Many of our summaries have also been published, or drawn from, in media coverage of high-profile decisions. It must be better that the media and victims have the facts, rather than speculation. Has the prisoner addressed underlying drug and alcohol problems? Why do we believe that a prisoner has changed?
I am a strong believer in the power of open justice. We cannot expect anyone to start to understand our decisions if we aren’t able to share our reasons.
On 18 July the Board published its Annual Report and Accounts. The report highlights the scale and complexity of the work of the Board.
Clearing the backlog
In 2018-19, the Board held 7,903 oral hearings. We directed the release of over 2,900 prisoners including 893 IPP prisoners (including IPP recalls). Compensation to prisoners has dipped by nearly 80% as we have cleared the backlog. A new framework called “RADAR” is also being implemented to ensure that we take a consistent approach to decision making. A project focussing on case ownership has already helped reduce the number of wasted hearings deferred on the day from over 20% to just 6%.
While I am proud of our achievements, many challenges remain. The Board is starting to see the number of Extended Determinate Sentence cases increase year on year. This is set to increase further and according to my estimations the Parole Board will need to hold over 10,000 hearings a year to keep up with demand. The new rules will assist us in managing this increased caseload by ensuring that key information is provided much earlier in the process. We will also have increased powers to manage non-disclosure applications, ensure third-party direction compliance and provide much clearer timeframes for the process.
To keep up with demand, we need enough members to keep up with the workload. I am privileged to have around 220 members to make the judicial decisions asked of them (assisted by my superb staff). Those public servants are extremely hard-working and committed to making fair and effective decisions. Following our recent campaign to strengthen the diversity amongst our members, I am very much looking forward to more new members joining us in the Autumn, to ensure we have the members we need to make the decisions required of us in the future. We are already planning our 2020 campaign to build on this success.
Improving Parole Board Diversity
A commitment on improving diversity
This is a guest blog by Martin Jones, Chief Exec of the Parole Board.
I have been delighted to write for Russell Webster about IPPs, recalls and improving the performance of the Parole Board. These are all important issues where we have made progress. But there is one vital issue where we still need to do better – Improving the diversity of our membership.
About a year ago I attended a National Prison Radio event where I was asked questions about parole by prisoners. A young black prisoner asked me whether it would be a good idea if each parole panel should include a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic person to help build trust in our decisions? I answered him honestly – it was a fantastic idea, but we simply do not have enough current members from a BAME background to make this remotely feasible. And I was clear with him – we must do better to address this.
Whilst 14% of the general population and over 25% of people in prison are from a BAME background; over 95% of our Parole Board members are from a white background and we currently have no black members. In my view that is indefensible and must be damaging to the confidence of prisoners and those working in the system.
Transparency
Since joining the Parole Board, I have been keen to be more open about our performance. That is why I worked with the Ministry of Justice to include outcomes of parole hearings in the biennial race in the Criminal Justice system publication Race in CJS for the first time. The statistics in that document, which are also shown in the Lammy Report, remain a source of real concern to anyone working in the CJS. There are still disparities at all stages in the CJS. And there are disparities in the Parole Board. Recent years have seen increases in the number of people released as we have held more oral hearings than ever. But certain groups have benefited more than others:
Hope shattered for 'trapped' Scotswood prisoner Danny Weatherson after 14 years behind bars
Danny Weatherson turned 31 today, now having 14 birthdays behind bars.
“Trapped” Danny hoped there was light at the end of his dark tunnel after being given a parole hearing date in May but his worried dad, Maurice Stevens, says he has been refused again.
And now he says his son’s treatment is “barbaric”.
“Danny is in his 14th year in prison for a relatively minor offence of attempted robbery of a coat and also an attempted robbery of a mobile phone, which a judge recommended to serve just over 15 months in prison until he had to apply for parole,
“He has just had a parole hearing where he was refused yet again and was told to apply again in six months time.
“It is Danny’s birthday on July 18 when he turns 31. He has been incarcerated since he just turned 17.
“In my view this is absolutely barbaric and inhumane what they are doing to him.” continued>>>https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/hope-shattered-trapped-scotswood-prisoner-16602147?fbclid=IwAR2bqRLhL0tlBCI_2jlBf3-hQVlygnYHI0JzjJJVtEPXMvAKchAiANBCYGQ
Justice
Committee demands more transparency from new probation model
Last Friday (19 July 2019), the House of Commons Justice Committee published a short follow-up report on Transforming Rehabilitation with the aim of helping ensuring a smooth transition to the next model of probation.
The report makes recommendations related to staffing, the voluntary sector, Through the Gate (provision for resettling offenders on release from custody), post-release supervision and costs. The Committee calls for greater transparency of funding, “so we can see where funding is going and what impact it is having”.
This blog post highlights the key recommendations in the report.
Probation staff
The Committee pays tribute to “the dedicated hard work of the probation profession over the past few years” and acknowledges the stress that the TR changes have (and will) inflict ion them.
The Committee is pushing ministers of probation staff recruitment and endorses the idea of a professional register:
We support the principle of an independent statutory register for probation professionals, since it is important to raise the status of the probation profession. It is important to consult widely on this, including with the unions, and we look forward to scrutinising the detailed proposals. We recommend that the necessary legislation to introduce a statutory register for probation professionals be introduced as soon as possible, and certainly within the next Queen’s Speech at the very latest.
Voluntary sector
The Committee is keen that in the next iteration of TR, the MoJ fulfils its promises to involve more voluntary sector providers:
It is vital that the new system should be organised and funded in such a way that the involvement of the voluntary sector is protected and encouraged. We should be able to measure this. The Government should develop a detailed evaluation strategy to ensure that it measures the impact of its new probation policy on the voluntary sector from 2020 in Wales and 2021 in England. This should include establishing the current baseline, to order to measure change. From the start of 2022, the Government should publish transparent figures setting out how much probation funding flows to the voluntary and private sector (including through sub-contracting), and to whom.
Transparency of funding
The Committee is clearly not happy with not being able to get a clear picture of probation funding, particularly in relation to the private Community Rehabilitation Companies:
There is an unacceptable lack of transparency about the reasons for individual spending decisions. For example, when he appeared in front of us, the Minister was not able to explain the Ministerial Direction, made four weeks before, to make payments to CRC subcontractors, against the advice of the MOJ Permanent Secretary in his role as departmental Accounting Officer. Ministerial Directions are rare—it was nine years since the Secretary of State for Justice last issued one.
When the period with the current CRCs has been finalised and completed, the MOJ should publish a cost analysis, setting out the spend on CRCs and the changes for the lifetime of the CRC contracts. We also note that HMPPS publishes a cost per prisoner per year; the MOJ should consider publishing per-head costs of offender probation support, broken down by CRCs and the NPS.
This last recommendation — that we should get a proper indication of how much both public and private probation sectors are spending on a per person supervised basis — is something that many of us have been frustrated by over the past five years. It will be interesting to see whether the MoJ accepts the challenge.
2019 August 2019
Commenting on the latest
safety in custody statistics published today by the Ministry of
Justice, Peter Dawson, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:
“The faint hope that our prison system might have
turned a corner has been dashed by these numbers. Prisons are still getting
more dangerous as places where people have to live and work. More people
than last year chose to take their own life rather than endure it. When an
individual prison hits rock bottom, the government reduces the number of
prisoners it holds – but it continues to ignore the obvious truth that it is
the prison system as a whole that is grossly overcrowded. Ministers talk about
having recruited more staff, but the problem will only be solved by having
fewer prisoners.”
The figures show:
An increase in total assaults over the last year which rose
by 11%, 4% of which was over the last quarter. The total number of assaults
over the past year is the highest ever recorded
The number of serious assaults were at their highest
ever recorded rate with 1,000 incidents
The number of assaults on staff is also up by 4% over
the quarter, and 15% over the year
The number of incidents of self-harm are also up, with
the second highest ever recorded quarterly figure
The number of deaths has decreased to 73 from 77 over the
last quarter, and the annual number has also slightly decreased to 309 from 311.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 190109003
IPP prisoner 174 IPP deaths. Ministry of justice
Disclosure TeamMinistry of Justice102 Petty France LondonSW1H 9AJ
Redesigning probation (again)
This is the final post in a blog mini-series in which I am working through the detail of the main topics in the operating blueprint for the new probation system which HMPPS published on 14 June. http://www.russellwebster.com/tr2blueprint4/
What are the MoJ’s plans for probation?
When the Justice Secretary announced the format of the new probation system last Thursday (16 May 2019), the MoJ also published its response to the consultation it issued back in last July.
The consultation process has been rather strange. The consultation document, entitled “Strengthening Probation, Building Confidence”, maintained that the government intended to keep the same format of Transforming Rehabilitation with the public sector National Probation Service servicing the courts and managing high risk offenders with the private Community Rehabilitation Companies managing low and medium risk offenders. The main change was the planned reduction in the number of CRCs from 21 to 11, aligned with new NPS divisions.
In the end, Ministers bowed to pressure from the sector (and a succession of critical reports by the Probation Inspectorate, National Audit Office and others) and decided to return all offender management to the NPS.
The announcement did not give much further detail other than:
- The 11 new CRCs will now be known as “innovation partners” and will be directly responsible for providing unpaid work and accredited programmes.
- The NPS will be required to buy all interventions from the market including “resettlment and rehabilitative services”
- Private and voluntary sector organisations will need to register on a dynamic purchasing framework (similar to that used for the recent re-procurement of prison education) in order to provide services to offenders.
- The total annual budget for unpaid work, accredited programmes and these rehabilitative and resettlement services will be up to £280 million per year.
However, it is clear that there remain many details to be worked out. No new operating model was published and the MoJ has provided only a little additional information about what happens next:
- A period of market and stakeholder engagement.
- A commercial competition later this year for providers to bid to provide rehabilitative services.
- Three launch events to discuss the reforms in more depth at the end of May.
I have read the consultation response to find whether there are any more clues to the MoJ’s plans.
The consultation
There were 476 responses to the consultation, 44% of them from probation professionals, 17% from voluntary sector organisations and 8% from judges and magistrates. Here is how the MoJ has addressed some of respondents’ concerns.
A clearer role for the voluntary sector
The MoJ says that “interventions should be commissioned and delivered locally where possible” and that it wants to see a clearer role for a “wide range of voluntary sector providers”. The MoJ intends to achieve this via a dynamic framework which will operate as an open panel of suppliers, who can be admitted to the panel at any point during its lifetime subject to a qualification process (based on experience and capabilities). Eligible panel members will be invited to participate in mini-competitions for the services required which will be run by the regional directors of the eleven areas (see map below) on either a regional or local level.
Resettlement
Under the current system, CRCs are responsible for preparing all prisoners for release. However, this is set to change:
Consistent with our broader approach to offender management we intend that in future the responsibilities for assessing offenders’ needs; identifying the services required; and coordinating delivery of these services will in future be provided through the NPS; with a much clearer role for private and voluntary sector providers in delivering those interventions and services.
Whether regional directors will commission in-prison resettlement services on a prison-by-prison basis or home area basis is unclear, nor how resettlement will fit with the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) scheme currently rolled out within the prison service. As far as I can see, there is no indication as to whether the MoJ plans to change (or abolish) the post sentence supervision arrangements which brought another 40,000 short term prisoners under the supervision of the probation service and has contributed to a big increase in the numbers recalled to prison.
Cross-sector commissioning
The MoJ says it intends to use the new regional structures to “test innovative forms of commissioning to focus on cross-cutting social outcomes that are key to reducing reoffending” — presumably offender accommodation in particular. It intends to ringfence funding within the overall probation budget with the aim of attracting match funding from other government departments or commissioning bodies including social finance providers and Social Impact Bonds.
Rebuilding the probation profession
The consultation responses quotes from Chief Probation Inspector Dame Glenys Stacey who has emphasised the damage to the professional identity of probation staff from the way that TR was implemented, particularly for those working in CRCs. She has advocated an evidence-based probation service delivered by professional staff who are constantly developing their skills.
The MoJ says it intends to further this objective by bringing forward “legislation to implement a statutory professional regulatory framework across the probation system with continual professional development standards and a practise and ethical framework for designated roles. By implementing this framework, we aim to ensure that staff who are suitably qualified are supported in gaining the tools and opportunities for a long and effective career.”
You can keep up with the market engagement events and next steps in the probation redesign process on the MoJ probation consultation website.
Reaffirming the importance of rehabilitation
This is the third post in a new blog series in which I am working through the detail of the main topics in the operating blueprint for the new probation system which HMPPS published on 14 June.
Today, I am focusing what we know about how the next iteration of Transforming Rehabilitation (now known as the probation reform programme) will work in relation to: rehabilitation and accredited programmes.
Rehabilitation
It is heartening to see the HMPPS dedicating a separate section of the blueprint to rehabilitation (desistance is still a mainly foreign concept to the MoJ, although the word does crop up three times in the 66-page blueprint). Rehabilitation, to most of us should either be the primary focus of probation work or at least share top billing with protecting the public. However, the Probation Inspectorate made it abundantly clear that the whole concept of rehabilitation was more or less abandoned under TR. Not only were most CRCs rarely focused on rehabilitation but many NPS divisions were found to be focused almost totally on public protection while doing little reducing reoffending work.
The blueprint re-states that rehabilitation is a primary function of probation and sets out a number of key design principles including:
- Accredited programmes are the intervention of choice for those who are eligible.
- Optimise use of Community Sentence Treatment Requirements (MHTRs, ATRs, DRRs).
- There will be a mandated core set of interventions that will be available for those with a RAR and for those on Licence. These interventions will address the areas of need either strongly associated with reoffending or to provide the stabilisation an individual needs to focus on other issues.
- Risk-Need-Responsivity principles should be followed when selecting interventions, including both strengths-based, and trauma-informed approached where relevant.
- Interventions will have various levels of intensity to reflect the varying complexity and acuteness of need that is commonly occurring in the probation caseload. The number of days proposed will reflect this and, within this, delivery should be individually tailored to reflect a person’s progress. •
- Providers will be expected to tailor design and delivery of these interventions to reflect the needs of specific cohorts where the evidence shows that different approaches improve outcomes. The cohorts in scope are: women, young adults, those with learning disabilities and BAME groups.
The graphic below shows HMPPS’ expectations.
Accredited programmes
The blueprint section on Accredited Programmes reminds us that those “Innovation Partners” (many of whom may be the same companies who currently operate the CRCs) who win the 11 regional contracts in the TR2 competition will be expected to deliver both unpaid work and accredited programmes.
The blueprint emphasises that (unlike the present situation) every offender should have timely and local access to any accredited programme needed to address an identified criminogenic need.
Innovation Partners will deliver both Thinking Skills Programmes (TSP) and Building Better Relationships (BBR). Both programmes will be subject to impact evaluation in 2020 (it is to be hoped that they prove more effective than the accredited prison Sex Offender Treatment Programme). The NPS will maintain responsibility for programmes for people convicted of sexual offences as well as for offenders convicted of extremism or related offences.
There is clearly still considerable debate around the subject of accredited programmes within HMPPS since TSP and BBR are the only two programmes specified in the blueprint although:
“we will encourage the delivery of additional Accredited Programmes where there is an identified need, if Innovation Partners are able to demonstrate a secure delivery model, which ensures timely access to the programmes”.
The blueprint also makes it clear that Innovation Partners will be required to deliver new Accredited Programmes as they become available and have the potential to design, develop and test new programmes in partnership with HMPPS.
The proposed future model for probation
Earlier today (14 June 2019), Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service published more information on the next iteration of the “probation reform programme” with a document entitled: The Proposed Future Model for Probation: A Draft Operating Blueprint.
The Blueprint sets out more detail on what the probation system will look like once CRC contracts come to an end in Spring 2021 and it builds on the proposals set out in the consultation response. HMPPS says the model in the Blueprint will be further refined over the next few months.
The summary included in the blueprint pretty much replicates the Justice Secretary’s announcement of last month:
- Responsibility for offender management returns to the NPS.
- There will be ten NPS regions in England and one region in Wales, each to be overseen by a regional probation director.
- There will be new national standards for offender management which focus on the importance of the quality of offender engagement and the form and frequency of contact with offenders, along with clear frameworks for staffing ratios and caseloads.
- NPS staff will be responsible for co-ordinating resettlement.
- There will still be considerable outsourcing with Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes tendered out on a regional basis to “Innovation Partners” and resettlement and other (non-accredited) interventions commissioned by a new “Dynamic Framework”.
- HMPPS is also committed to new legislation to recognise probation work as a professional vocation with a regulatory framework.
- The blueprint also pledges new performances measures for both the NPS and new private/voluntary sector providers.
- Finally, there is a commitment to a better IT system.
There is more detailed information on 12 topic areas:
- Future Structures, Probation Regions, and the Commissioning and Contracting of Services.
- Regional Co-ordination Function
- Advice to Courts
- Offender Management
- Unpaid Work
- Resettlement Model
- Rehabilitation
- Accredited Programmes
- Cohorts and Vulnerable Offenders
- Workforce
- Digital and Technology
- Performance Framework
In this post, I intend to share information from the first three of these topics, future blog posts will share information from the other nine topics.
Structures, regions & commissioning/contracting
Each Regional Probation Director will be supported by a new regional management structure that brings together the line management of NPS operational leaders, commissioning and contract management of private and voluntary sector providers of probation services, performance and quality assurance, business services and stakeholder engagement. The aim is to support a more integrated approach across public, private and voluntary sector providers of probation services. Each regional director will be responsible for meeting the Public-Sector Equality Duty and delivering the relevant recommendations of the Lammy Review and the Female Offender Strategy. To that end, each region will have a dedicated Equalities Manager. This structure is set out in the graphic below.
The commissioning of services via the Dynamic Framework will be done by the HMPPS central Probation Reform Programme team for the start of the new system before being devolved to regional directors.
egional co-ordination
This section is particularly laden with government jargon and management speak and I found it hard to clarify exactly what it means. Apologies for this example:
“A Regional Co-ordination Function is predicated on the Dynamic Framework and the regional oversight of multiple contracts delivered on a regional and sub-regional footprint. Working in an Intelligent Customer capacity, it will actively co-ordinate supply and demand to ensure the Responsible Officer can have access to the right services at the right time.”
The new system is clearly intended to ensure that offender managers/responsible officers can access any service that is required for the supervision and support of any offender. There is an expectation that these services will be both local and able to be accessed promptly.
So far, so good. It is not, however, clear to me how having 10 big English regions will make it easier to achieve this. As far as I can see, the East of England region, for example, includes Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk — it will be no easy task for one person to co-ordinate accommodation, ETE, substance misuse services etc. for everyone across this patch.
Advice to courts
The “Advice to Courts” section has five key design principles:
- Advice to Court functions will continue to sit alongside existing NPS responsibilities which include the preparation of PSRs, review and enforcement proceedings for all offenders.
- We are committed to improving the quality of our advice to courts and PSRs to ensure proposals target specific interventions and treatment requirements that will facilitate reduced reoffending.
- We want to support efforts to reduce the use of short term custodial sentences by ensuring effective targeting of fuller reports for complex cases including women, black, Asian and minority ethnic offenders (BAME) or those at greater risk of short term imprisonment.
- We will review the training for staff in court to ensure that those who represent the Probation Service are confident in the advice they provide and increase sentencers’ confidence in community sentence requirements known to be more effective at reducing reoffending.
- We want to improve local and national court liaison arrangements so that sentencers are confident about probation services and the delivery of community sentences; are aware of the range of effective interventions being delivered or commissioned by probation and are assured of the quality and effectiveness of those services.
To my mind, this last principle will be the hardest to achieve since accredited programmes and Unpaid Work will continue to be outsourced with the inevitable consequence that NPS court staff will have no detailed operational knowledge of them.
Another noteworthy issue in this section is a commitment to reduce the the percentage of oral reports on women, BAME offenders and those at risk of short-term imprisonment in order to “improve the quality of assessments, identification of offending related needs and the targeting to appropriate interventions”.
March 28,2019 The Transforming Rehabilitation model for probation is irredeemably flawed
RUSSELL WEBSTER
Criminal Justice & substance misuse expert and author of this blog.
The current model for the delivery of probation services in England and Wales is irredeemably flawed, and a major rethink is needed to create a system that is fit for the future, according to Dame Glenys Stacey, in her final annual report before she finishes her three year tenure as Chief Inspector of Probation.
In a lengthy report which cements Dame Glenys’ reputation for straight talking she depicts a sector under exceptional strain:
- both the public-sector National Probation Service (NPS) and privately-owned Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are failing to meet some of their performance targets. The NPS is performing better overall, whereas eight out of ten CRCs inspected this year received the lowest possible rating – ‘Inadequate’ – for the implementation and delivery of probation supervision. In too many cases, there is not enough purposeful activity.
- the probation profession has been diminished. There is a national shortage of qualified probation professionals, and too much reliance on unqualified or agency staff.
- in the day-to-day work of probation professionals, there has been a drift away from practice informed by evidence. The critical relationship between the individual and the probation worker is not sufficiently protected in the current probation model.
Dame Glenys said:
Probation must be delivered locally, yet the service is now split at a local level. Despite capable leaders, there has been a deplorable diminution of the probation profession and a widespread move away from practice informed by evidence. This is largely due to the impact of commerce, and contracts that treat probation as a transactional business. Professional ethics can buckle under such pressures, and the evidence we have is that this has happened to some extent.
The Chief Inspector is clear that although the intention to terminate CRC contracts early and move to better-funded and better-structured contracts will improve matters, it will not be enough.
Any new probation model must focus on quality. In my view, effective probation work is most likely when good leaders are free to manage, motivate and develop professional staff, who are in turn able to build challenging but supportive relationships with offenders. Specialist and local services are also crucial to help offenders turn their lives around.
With the MoJ still in the process of deciding on the form of the next iteration of Transforming Rehabilitation (conflicting messages keep emerging from Petty France about the extent and nature of private sector involvement) Dame Glenys makes a timely appeal for probation structures to be built on four key design principles:
- probation services to be evidence based. Work to reduce reoffending should draw on research and evidence, and new initiatives should be evaluated and the results added to the evidence base.
- probation services that meet both the needs of victims and the individuals under supervision. Probation work should be of the right quality, whoever is providing it.
- an integrated and professional service. The probation service should have enough qualified professionals with access to the right facilities, services and information (and, where necessary, protections) to enable them to do their jobs well.
- a probation service able to command the confidence of the judiciary, victims, the professional staff employed and the wider public.
The report
The report is 108 pages long and divided into two main sections. The first provides a detailed summary of the role and organisation of the probation service. One might think that this is superfluous in an annual report but the section makes sense for two main reasons:
- It provides an authoritative and up-to-date description of the work of probation; in itself an invaluable resource as anyone who has ever had to try to explain what probation is for to people from outside (or sometimes even inside) the criminal justice system is likely to agree.
- It gives a clear account of the significant changes which have taken place in probation over the last decade, both in terms of government expectations and the demographic and offending histories of those supervised by the service.
The section pulls together the latest data with specially commissioned graphics and will form the basis of another blog post next week. As a taster, see the graphic above which condenses the probation service’s workflow in such a helpful manner.
The second section presents a systematic evaluation of the current provision with an emphasis on the many failings of the current system with a focus on how things need to change. Again, I will provide more details in a subsequent blog post.
Conclusion
This report is written explicitly to urge ministers to redesign the probation service in line with the principles set out above. Taken with the recent National Audit Office report which also highlights the dangers of a split service, the MoJ will find it hard to argue that it has not received helpful advice on the future of probation. The aspect of Dame Gleny’s report which I personally find most heartening is her insistence that for many years probation worked well and that if the new system allows probation staff to use their experience and skills and focus on their interactions with the offenders they supervise (rather than have an eye on the requirements of commercial contracts), it will do so again. I will leave the last word to the outgoing Chief Inspector:
Services of the right quality are most likely if probation leaders are able to lead, motivate, engage and develop a sufficient number of probation professionals who in turn can exercise their professional judgement in each case and tailor supervision in each case, with access to a range of specialist services to meet needs in each case. Leaders can then be held fully to account for delivery, for the service’s adherence to the evidence base and for value for money.
Experience has shown that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible to reduce the probation service to a set of contractual measures. I urge the government to consider carefully the future model for probation services.
In the interests of transparency, I should declare that I am a member of the HMI Probation Advisory Board.
December 2018 Chief Probation Inspector draws line in the sand
Dame Glenys Stacy's first annual report as chief probation inspector concludes that the new probation system is just not working.
Current probation system is not evidence-based
It’s a safe bet that today’s first Chief Inspector of Probation annual report by Dame Glenys Stacey will get much more media coverage than those of most of her predecessors.
In a now familiar, direct style, Dame Glenys provides a surgical analysis of the extent to which the new probation system brought in by the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme is failing to rehabilitate offenders and protect the public.
If you work in any way for or with the public or private branches of the probation service, I strongly recommend that you invest the time to read the report in full.
In this post, I have picked out some key assessments to give you a flavour of the whole.
The [TR] teething problems we identified in a series of early inspection reports have largely been resolved. More deep-rooted problems now prevail.
Context
The report provides a useful graphic summarising the inspectors’ findings:
Key assessments
Below are some of the key assessments that the Chief Inspector and her team have made of the current performance of the probation system.
A two-tier service
We see clearly that there is now a two-tier and fragmented service, with individuals being supervised by the NPS more effectively overall. Of course, the NPS is funded differently, and more generously.
IT holding back modernisation
Most CRCs are struggling. Those owners ambitious to remodel services have found probation difficult to reconfigure or re-engineer. Delivering probation services is more difficult than first appears, particularly in prisons and rural areas. There have been serious setbacks. Despite significant CRC investment, implementation of new IT systems so central to most CRCs’ transformation plans is stalled, awaiting the essential connectivity with other justice systems, yet to be provided by the Ministry of Justice.
Resourcing & Staffing
Unanticipated changes in sentencing and the nature of work coming to CRCs have seriously affected their income and indeed their commercial viability, causing them to curtail or change their transformation plans. Many have reduced staff numbers more than once:
in some, we find staff with exceptional workloads working long hours and still unable to deliver to the professional standards that they know are right.
Lack of consistent, face-to-face supervision
I question whether the current model for probation can deliver sufficiently well. Above all, a close, forthcoming and productive relationship between an individual and their probation worker is key. This is where skilled probation staff add most value, by motivating offenders, working continuously with them to bring about change, and at the same time protecting the public from harm. Yet in some CRCs, individuals meet with their probation worker in places that lack privacy, when sensitive and difficult conversations must take place. Some do not meet with their probation worker face-to face. Instead, they are supervised by telephone calls every six weeks or so from junior professional staff carrying 200 cases or more.
Mental anguish’ and wider problems with IPP sentences
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/11/mental-anguish-and-wider-problems-with-ipp-sentences?fbclid=IwAR2PF3WascK4FRUanUFT5Bsm435u96EF1w1mjHA3QFdtDO9MxFIbHeZRyBY
Gauke quits as justice secretary
July 2019 Pay rise for prison officersthe highest consolidated increase for more than 10 years.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pay-rise-for-prison-officers-2019-statement-by-robert-buckland?fbclid=IwAR178ZUMGtB2k519jwgIPc7Dw-mKNakLl5Du3bcGi7boRRLXcRlRCJu8U_c
Challenge a parole decision
When and how to challenge a Parole Board decision to release an offender.Guidance applies to parole decistions on or after 22 July 20192016, IPP FamilyS are important and should not be considered as interference.
Prisoner complaints policy framework
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/814769/prisoner-complaints-policy-framework.pdf
National Partnership Agreement for employment and welfare support in custody and the community 2019 to 2022
Ministry of Justice Annual Report and Accounts 2018 to 2019
Experiencing long term imprisonment from young adulthood: identity, adaptation and penal legitimacy
Comments
Joe Pullen
People aren't interested in prisoners, they think we deserve to be locked away and they are mostly correct in their thinking, I'm an IPP and I still have to take into account of my previous negative behaver and the consequences that followed.
However look at the clarity in what this Gentlemen and the rest of the people in that debate are saying and how clear it's been presented, its tragic that even 7 years since the IPP was abolished that they never a tleast put everyone remaining inside to the lower tariff EPP I mention that as it's not obviously as well known, EPP's had a set sentence but with a fairly long licence period that usually ranged between 2 years to 6 most I ever heard , not this unrealistic 99 year licence what on earth were they thinking, people say that they didn't properly consider the backlash problems with stacked up IPP's waiting in massive cue lists for courses, did they care?
further more do they care ?....... I don't know if anyone has noticed with the media and even on this debate which was open and far, especially the media always mention sex offenders a very clever move as 99% of us the members of the public and prisoners too totally dislike this type of offender, but I notice it seems to be dropped in whenever discussing prisoners and IPP issues, please media try not to think and stain offenders and x offenders with the same brush as thes types of prisoners, they are segregated from us the general population, so at least if in future you refer about prisoners might be worth mentioning that we aren't the same as those type people.I am passionate in trying somehow to wake the world up to what's going on here, come on panorama, media.......good morning TV........wake up
Horton
New Justice Minister is Robert Buckland. He is a barrister and seems to have an awareness of special needs / learning differences, at least in children. Let's see how he shapes up.Oh, I'm not expecting great things. I've seen too many Justice Secretaries come and go for that. But I'm not prepared to give up, either!
http://www.russellwebster.com/jctr719/
http://www.russellwebster.com/dgs19/
http://www.russellwebster.com/tr2519/
http://www.russellwebster.com/hmipar17/
http://www.russellwebster.com/martinjones5/
http://www.russellwebster.com/martinjones4/
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/PressPolicy/News/vw/1/ItemID/707
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ippkatherinegleeson/
No comments:
Post a Comment
comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.