Annex: e-consultation
Introduction
1. The Committee set up a web forum in support
of its inquiry into the current and future role of the probation
service. The purpose of the forum was to encourage contributions
from probation staff and others with experience of probation on
the challenges currently facing probation services. Although the
main target group was frontline probation practitioners, the Committee
invited the views of other individuals and organisations who work
with offenders (including probation middle managers and probation
trust board members), the public, (ex-) offenders and their families,
victims of crime, sentencers and small voluntary sector providers.
Practicalities
2. The forum opened on 17 May 2011 and ran until
21 June 2011.
3. The site was designed and created by the Parliamentary
web-centre. During the registration process, users agreed to a
set of discussion rules. The forum was moderated by Justice Committee
staffmessages were checked to ensure that they adhered
to the discussion rules before they were published on the forum.
4. Contributions to the forum were used by members
of the Committee to inform their questioning of the witnesses
who attended hearings as the inquiry progressed as well as during
the process of drafting and agreeing a report.
Outreach
5. The forum was announced by the Committee via
a press notice and a publicity letter was sent to Napo, UNISON,
Criminal Justice Alliance, Clinks, Victim Support, Probation Association,
Probation Chiefs' Association, Unlock, Nacro, Howard League, Local
Government Association, the British Society of Criminology and
the Magistrates' Association.
Forum questions
6. The web forum posed the following questions:
- To what extent is more direct
contact with offenders necessary for effective offender management
and how could this be achieved?
- Probation national standards have recently been
streamlined. To what extent are frontline probation staff, and
others who work with offenders in the community, equipped to confidently
handle such a shift in their role?
- What will be the impact of creating a system
in which probation trusts would compete with other providers from
the private and voluntary sectors?
- Are there ways of improving efficiency and driving
up probation performance in addition to the Government's proposals?
Profile of respondents
The e-consultation attracted 2,812 views and users
contributed 60 posts. The majority of respondents were probation
officers or probation service officers.
Summary of responses
Direct contact with offenders
7. Participants in the forum stressed the importance
of direct contact between probation officers and offenders:
The relationship between the probation officer and
the offender is key to the process of rehabilitation. It takes
time to build up trust before an offender will begin to disclose
personal pertinent information to his/her supervising officer.[503]
The task of probation staff is to focus on those
individuals without the will, the skills or the capacity to identify
and make changes. In order to do this staff NEED to spend time
with their offenders to understand them within the contexts of
their environment, relationships and their pasts. Staff need to
be able to model effective, realistic ways to solve problems,
increase motivation and offer support whilst also holding individuals
to account in relation to their behaviour/order/licence. This
can't be done from a computer but from actual contact with the
person.[504]
You can only engage with a client and build a good
relationship with them if you have time to sit down and talk with
them. By having this time you have a better knowledge of the client
and can make a better assessments of their needs. Making 'remote'
assessments with little or no direct contact with the offenders
decreases their willingness to engage and reduces compliance.
It's human nature, if you take a genuine interest in somebody
(and have time for it) they will respond positively.[505]
8. One contributor thought that direct contact
was not necessarily essential for every tier of offender:
We need to get real. Tier 2 cases are dealt with
on an office duty basis with little continuity. Put this group
out to a tendering arrangement and concentrate on tier 3/4 high
risk work. Just think of the resources we could free up to do
quality work.[506]
But another disputed this view:
In my experience working for the West Mercia Probation
Trust, Tier 2 cases are not dealt with on an office duty basis
with little continuity for the above reason. They are managed
by trained and experienced PSOs [probation service officers] who
communicate with fully qualified POs [probation officers] and
who are supervised by SPOs [senior probation officers]. These
cases should continue to attract a similar level of resource /
intervention by the probation service due the risk of re-offending
posed.[507]
The relationship and contact is vital to all tiers
of offenders. Tier 1, mainly unpaid work offenders, need appropriate
supervisors who model respectful social interaction, work ethic,
social responsibility and so on. I have the utmost respect for
those who manage it given the nature of how they are expected
to achieve it. Other tiers of offenders also require this with
the additional support of motivating and managing the offender.[508]
9. High caseload was identified as a barrier
to effective contact between probation officers and offenders:
One of the biggest barriers to building a relationship
under the current arrangements is the emphasis on the 'number
and frequency' of appointments, not the 'quality or content' thereof.
What you do with the offender is what matters, not how often they
are seen. Offenders are also legitimately upset when they travel
for three hours to a probation office just to be signed in because
their supervising officer is too busy with another bureaucratic
deadline. Such requirements undermine the credibility of the processes
(as do the closure of local offices and centralisation of services
in rural areas, where public transport lacks the efficiency of
the London Underground). You can achieve more in one hour than
you can in 4 x 15 minutes spread over a month. It offers better
continuity the time necessary to dig that little bit deeper. Allow
staff to manage their own diaries based on their availability
or the work required and not on meaningless reporting and the
demands of an increasingly voracious IT system.[509]
The former CIP [chief inspector of probation] Andrew
Bridges (witness to the JSC) noted in an earlier contribution
to this debate with Enver Solomon (in Criminal Justice Matters)
that any practitioner having a caseload beyond 32 could not expect
to offer quality supervision.[510]
The general public would be appalled if they knew
how little time we actually spend working with offenders. The
system has become far too bureaucratic and target driven, and
it seems to be becoming more bureaucratically intensive. The introduction
of OASys quality assurance is an example of this, where rigid
rules force staff to do meaningless and repetitive tasks. OASys
has many good points, but needs to be streamlined radically. In
our area there have recently been some good developments with
the introduction of workbooks for one to one use, and this sort
of simple, but effective intervention should be encouraged. Time
could also be saved by simplifying many of the referral forms
that are used within probation, and with other agencies.[511]
10. Several respondents felt that the day-to-day
work of a probation officer had become too bureaucratic. They
advocated reducing the use of OASys (Offender Assessment System)
and increase professional discretion in order to reduce the burden
on probation officers and create more time for direct contact
with offenders:
The oversold OASys tool which has become the equivalent
of e-servitude, confining staff to endless hours of computer dominated
practice, which was shamefully sidestepped by more senior probation
voices called to be witnesses to the Committee. Needs urgent revision
and streamlined.[512]
I agree that the extensive use of OASys is very time-consuming
with little real value as an effective tool.[513]
I find that an OASys led pre-sentence report approach
seems to have added to the length of the reports and has increased
significantly the time it takes to prepare such a report.[514]
Streamlining national probation standards
11. Some contributors had concerns that frontline
probation staff would find it difficult to handle a shift in their
role in the face of new streamlined national probation standards:
I worry that we are moving too fast. Like so much
with the Coalition, they want it to happen today. I think it will
take some time for the service to adjust to not being tied to
rigid standards. I think the way that training has been done over
the last few years and the lack of training provided to PSOs has
not provided officers who necessarily have professional judgment
or know how to use it.[515]
The removal of the social work background training
was the biggest mistake probation undertook. Now we have probation
staff who suffer from an identity crisis of not knowing what or
who they are. A generation of probation staff who are accustomed
to using enforcement now have to make decisions based on professional
judgment. A difficult task to achieve when you have been taught
and developed to follow stringent guidelines and standards with
very little flexibility to breath never mind spend 20 minutes
with an offender.[516]
Spending hours in front of a computer recording endless
information to satisfy NOMS targets and defend the service from
political scrutiny has only served to de-skill new practitioners.
The tired mantra of "if you haven't written it down it didn't
happen" has been taken to the ridiculousperhaps we
should say this to our offenderIt's ok if you didn't write
it down you didn't do it! Clearly there is no confidence in practitioners
to enjoy their work and be honourable to itmicro managing
professionals does not work![517]
12. Others had concerns that the streamlining
of national standards had been designed to enable other providers
to fulfil the work of probation:
There have also been expressed concerns that this
might prefigure a worrying prelude to enabling other providers
into the supervisory role.[518]
My concern is that simplifying these standards just
for the benefit of easing the transition for other agencies to
do the work of probation undervalues all the positive development
which the service has achieved in its 100 years of work.[519]
13. However, several contributors welcomed the
change because the standards had proved inflexible and too prescriptive.
They argued that probation officers are capable of using professional
judgment to do their work effectively:
National standards had become over prescriptive and
a barrier to initiative. Strict protocols invite a bureaucratic
response and can dumb down practice, as can be seen in the behaviour
of a whole variety of organisations from hospitals to building
societies. In probation their relaxation is welcomed because it
brings with it an increase in discretion and a better chance to
build purposeful relationships with offenders as part of challenging
their offending behaviour.[520]
I think the skills are there but the culture is not.
I think, given the new National Standards (or lack thereof ??),
it will afford trusts to opportunity to empower their staff to
revisit the concept of defensible decision making. We still have
many managers who grew up in a Service that was not tied up in
bureaucracy and more able to look at things creatively and sensibly.[521]
I would suggest that probation workers who have worked
in different fields and have more life experience are better-equipped
to 'use our discretion'. I feel that my training and learning
as a TPO [trainee probation officer] has helped to improve those
skills. However, our line managers often seem to have insufficient
time available to help us as effectively as they wish. It would
be good to have more time for development sessions within our
teams, to discuss particular issues or clients, but in practice
this is very difficult to do.[522]
Paring down national standards is to be welcomed,
and staff are very capable of managing this change. More flexibility
can only help us to focus on using our resources to the best possible
effect.[523]
14. Many welcomed the new emphasis on professional
judgment and individual discretion, but warned that the change
needed to be accompanied by proper training and supervision:
The only concern is that the lack of guidance could
be used against staff when there are serious further offence (SFO)
reviews. Staff deserve support when there is evidence of good
work, but all too often SFO reviews tend to seek out any excuse
to blame staff.[524]
However two questions emerge: the first about the
skill base of the service which has been eroded by confusion over
the roles and functions of probation staff which has led to inadequate
investment in training. This needs to be remedied. Secondly there
is the question of clarity of purpose of supervision. This needs
to be defined broadly at a national level and locally on a case
by case basis so that there can be proper line management and
coaching of all staff.[525]
We have been so used to prescribed NS [national standards]
that a relaxation may cause anxieties. I welcome the relaxation
of NS (however we have still to be told what these are and when
they come into practice). I think with further training and support[
I would welcome the idea that I can make more decisions myself
rather than consult a prescribed standard. My only reservation
is that managers are available as needed to offer advice and countersign
any decision made.[526]
If the new NS are about greater flexibility, discretion
and professional judgment then this needs to be supported by a
quality trained staff who can make the decisions which are based
on sound theoretical principles.[527]
Competing with other providers from the private
and voluntary sectors
15. Two contributors argued that increased competition
between probation trusts and private and voluntary service providers
would drive innovation:
We need to spark innovation and change and trusts
have demonstrated again and again they can't deliver this. Market
testing will drive quality in the end.[528]
I have to say I tend to agree with you, in that we
do need to spark innovation whilst remaining vigilant when things,
as everything does, begin to go wrong. As someone who is very
passionate about their Trust but also constantly frustrated at
the lack of "thinking outside the dots", I tentatively
welcome this move.[529]
16. But the majority of contributors were against
the proposals to open the work of a probation trust to the market,
for a number of reasons. Some argued introducing the profit motive
into probation would lead to a fall in standards:
Private sectors core values are measured by profitability;
in effect they will attempt to do the same job for cheaper compromising
quality as a consequence. History indicates that Government bodies
never stipulate the finer details of accountability and performance
targets within the tender/contracts, introducing a drop in standards
instantly.[530]
It can't be more efficient having more people involved,
less consistency, mixed messages and confusion passed on to offenders
whose lives may already be unstable. Breaches, possibly contested
breaches, will increase with the associated costs to the whole
system. It's not innovative, the contracts will be worked to the
letter, no more, no less, because private business will never
see the value in going the extra mile.[531]
I have experienced the limited involvement of private
providers in the delivery of criminal justice, and my experience
shows their delivery has been inflexible and limited to the letter
of their contract, without any understanding of risk management.
The provision of services has, in my experience, been limited
and lacking in an understanding of "wider issues" or
joined up thinking.[532]
Others argued that any savings would be cancelled
out by increased costs elsewhere in the criminal justice system:
Creating a market in probation will simply lower
standards and appear to lower costs. In fact the costs will simply
be transferred to another part of the public sector in some way
(rising prison population probably) and leave shareholders happy.[533]
It won't be cheaper, the costs will end up somewhere
else, most likely prison places when cases have been mismanaged.[534]
One contributor argued that offenders may be suspicious
of the motives of private providers and therefore less likely
to cooperate with them:
logic dictates that the offenders benefit from the
underlying motivations of the people they come in contact with,
meeting people with ££ in their eyes with pound shop
attitudes will not encourage behavioural changes. It is the empathy
and intangible concepts of human behaviours from Probation employees
that change people not cheaper premises or materials.[535]
Several contributions to the web forum warned that
private providers were likely to 'cherry-pick' their clients at
the expense of those offenders considered too demanding:
The issues that impact on the offending behaviour
of individuals are many and complex and the approaches offered
by private sector providers have shown them to be incapable of
working with the most demanding and difficult clients, preferring,
instead, to 'cherry pick' the easy wins in order to 'evidence'
their ability to perform. This will serve to marginalise the most
difficult and dangerous people in a way that exacerbates risk
rather than reduces it. Private sector providers seem to struggle
to identify who the customer is. Is it NOMS? Is it the Courts?
Is it the community? Is it the offender? The answer is 'it's all
of the above'.[536]
This is likely to lead to
a real danger that
probation will do what other businesses do, delivering services
to the people who are more compliant to show its worth as opposed
to working with those who need to be worked with.[537]
I currently work in programmes and the services to
be tendered will have to be extremely well written if the harder
to deal with offenders are not to be excluded as providers faced
with the reality of dealing with such individuals 'cherry pick'
the easier individuals to meet completion rates and targets.[538]
Others warned that the introduction of competition
for particular elements of probation work (as the Government is
currently doing in the case of unpaid work) would lead to a fragmented
service, with a number of negative consequences:
Unpaid work has for many years outperformed any other
area of probation work. Yet it has suffered from being under under-resourced.
In opening it to competition there is the real risk that the service
it provides will deteriorate by divorcing it from the "gene
pool" that is the probation family. It may not be clear to
outsiders but the cross fertilisation that is at the heart of
the management of offenders enriches all areas of probation work.
In both directions. You cannot spend 6 to 7 hours a day with offenders,
many more than any other professionals in the criminal justice
system, as supervisors of unpaid work do, without gaining a great
deal of insight into their motivation and lifestyle choices of
the offenders you are supervising. This is passed on, sometimes
inadvertently but often reflectively to other probation staff
and is used in every aspect of the work: offender management;
programmes; drug rehabilitation units etc. That cross fertilisation
would be lost and the whole system devalued if a non-probation
body took over unpaid work.[539]
The government sees unpaid work, offender programmes,
community supervision etc as distinct and separate arms of community
sentences. This is a mistake if you are trying to promote effective
practice. As an offender manager I have benefitted from direct
contact with unpaid work supervisors and groupwork facilitators
who often work from the same office. The loss of one or other
to another provider would break the coherent picture needed to
effectively manage offenders or assisting them in changing. The
fragmentation of the community sentence into 'processes' for drug
rehabilitation, unpaid work, etc with a rump probation service
writing reports for courts and the parole board will lead in the
longer term to a 'layering' of community justice; harder to communicate
between and ultimately more expensive.[540]
Historically probation's core value base has been
to co-operate with other agencies, debate and discuss how agencies
could work together towards a common aim in securing better services
for their local areas. There is no doubt that payment by results
will have a devastating impact on the relationship with other
agencies and instead of working together for a common good they
end up working against each other for a few shilling from their
masters.[541]
The impact will ultimately be the degradation and
fragmentation of services provided to offenders which in turn
will lead to a public less protected, and significant damage being
caused to government and ministerial reputations. Given the current
constraints within which probation trusts operate, particularly
in relation to estates and IT, there is absolutely no way in which
trusts can compete on a level playing field with the private and
voluntary sectors.[542]
Some respondents warned of the negative impact such
a change could have on staff:
Compulsory competition decreases staff moral, distracts
focus from local offending reduction initiatives, drives down
terms and conditions for staff, increases staff turnover and decreases
the clients perception and experience.[543]
The introduction of the private sector has served
only to lower standards (the fact that the high standards that
the Probation Service have offered had to be lowered before the
private providers could even consider entering the field is telling
in itself), reduce the quality of training and increase the turnover
of staff by offering poorer contracts, poorer terms and condition
and poorer management.[544]
Improving efficiency and performance and resources
17. One contributor argued that to increase efficiency,
the probation service should concentrate on higher risk offenders
and put other areas of its work out to tender:
Move the concentration of Trust work to tier 3/4
activity. Look at tendering other parts of work. Try combining
court, court escort and prison reception to reduce costs and improve
the experience of the offender.[545]
18. Some warned that the strain on resources
as a result of budget cuts could affect service outcomes:
Basically the question is can we cut costs whilst
at the same time get more out of the work force. As an example
it's the same thing as taking your car to a back street garage
and having the breaks done, rather than taking this to a dealer
or a service station. The difference is visibleat the back
street garage yes you can get the job done on the cheap, fast
and service with a smile but when you drive your car away you'll
be back in a couple of months time having more replacement breaks.
You take it to a dealerit'll cost you more but you know
what they do is quality, checked and proper monitored. You try
and complain to a backstreet garage about the job they didthey'll
blame it on the user.[546]
With year on year Ministry of Justice budget cuts
of 6% and probation trusts facing significant budget reductions
at a point in time when the ambitious aims of reducing the prison
population as enshrined in the Government's Green Paper are premised
on kick starting a 'Rehabilitation Revolution'. The Gordian knot
question is now of finding 'innovative' ways of improving efficiency
within an organisation that has been battered and bruised by the
ill wind of political expediency, whilst at the same time promoting
greater diversity (read marketisation) in service provision with
a view to securing reductions in reoffending.[547]
Its seems Governments want more for less. The probation
service has driven up standards in recent years and has far exceeded
targets in many cases. To expect even more efficiency when the
service is running on bare bones will only affect outcomes.[548]
19. One respondent argued that reducing bureaucracy
would drive efficiency:
Its seems Governments want more for less. The Probation
Service has driven up standards in recent years and has far exceeded
targets in many cases. To expect even more efficiency when the
service is running on bare bones will only affect outcomes.
My time would be more efficiently spent doing direct
work with clients. Instead I am filling out various forms and
ticking boxes at an ever increasing rate. I'm sure the public
would be astounded that after paying to train me for two years
they hear I spend a lot of my time filling in housing and ETE
[education, training and employment] forms and then spend more
time in front of a computer inputting data. Efficiency can be
improved by cutting 50% of the paperwork/ bureaucracy.[549]
20. Another argued that increasing efficiency
would require deeper cultural change:
There needs to be a real debate about the core functions
of probation. The emphasis on risk management is producing an
ever more defensive culture, which lacks creativity and purpose.
It must be understood that good rehabilitation reduces risk and
protects the public and saves enormous amounts of public money.
Political leaders must show courage in leading, and there are
some signs that this happening. A cultural change is neededless
blame, and more staff time spent on core activities rather than
auditing everything excessively to meet inappropriate demands
and targets.[550]
21. Several respondents argued that the political
emphasis during the 2000s on punishment has undermined fundamental
probation values:
Sadly the damage was done long ago when the political
emphasis was on 'punishment'. The punishment for the offender
was to keep to tight schedules, travel long distances if necessary
and to be returned to Court if he/she was late by 15 minutes.
Fundamental social work values and the core task of rehabilitation
have been lost in the IT wilderness. Systems and processes have
become more important than the core task itself.[551]
Probation practice has been informed from a very
rich source of knowledge about offending behaviour that was ever
provided under the old social work qualification. It is the values
and ethics of the service that had been brutalised not the core
understanding. Paul Boateng spouting off "we are a law enforcement
agency, that is what we are, that is what we do" nonsense
which led to the identity crisis of the Probation Service and
the abandonment of the assist, advice and befriend values. The
'law enforcement' rhetoric is responsible for a breach first talk
later mentality and an erosion of ethical decision making when
dealing with offenders.[552]
The real question for me is, what does the MOJ want
the Probation Service to achieve? In 2001 we were moved away from
the social and holistic view of supervising offenders and encouraged
to be more punitive and target driven. The result is a diluted
and fragmented service
If I want an to assist an offender
to change his life I have to offer him an alternative. That is
the role of the Probation Service. If you are a risk I need resources
to monitor you and the authority to have some control in the community.[553]
22. Several respondents argued that efficiency
was currently hampered by national demands and a target driven
culture. They argued that probation trusts should be able to set
their priorities locally:
In order to re-ignite purpose in the Probation Service
policy makers need to decentralise control, devolve policy making
to a more local level, confer with local chiefs of probation and
other local stakeholders on what we are trying to achieve; enable
local probation areas to make contracts with local providers of
facilities, empower them to invite competitive bids from providers
of I.T. support. Have a compact or mission statement for probation.
Separate record-keeping functions from performance measures (let
auditors audit and probation staff do their job). Redesign performance
in terms of meeting local needs. Allow the Probation Service to
become innovative instead of being smothered by auditors.[554]
The objectives and targets set locally within a broad
framework would enable energy to be directed at appropriate line
management activity that would provide proper oversight of performance
at all levels. This is the essence of both efficiency and effectiveness.
Furthermore this would not only provide a supportive environment
for staff doing a difficult job it would enable appropriate prioritisation
of activities at all levels of the service. In a proper line management
structure efficient use of resources means that the life licence
case or the child abuser is always closely supervised.[555]
Removing some of the demands placed on probation
from the Centre will help improve performance and save money.
However, NOMS are introducing new ideas and new process as a way
of justifying their own existence. Probation was doing very well
before NOMS without a culture of rigid structure and regime taken
from the prisons and forced onto probation. Probation is accountable
what I would like to know how accountable is NOMS. Does the community/public
know what they do? These back-office operators who do very little
accept create red tape and block localised creativity would serve
well to be dismantled.[556]
503 Gaywhymark Back
504
SarahS Back
505
Officer Bazza Back
506
Outofdarkness Back
507
M0nk3y Back
508
SarahS Back
509
Rob Palmer Back
510
Mike Guilfoyle Back
511
Richard12659 Back
512
Mike Guilfoyle Back
513
Gaywhymark Back
514
Christine 456 Back
515
Pete northern Back
516
B. Knight Back
517
Owsbur Back
518
Mike Guilfoyle Back
519
B. Knight Back
520
Rainbow Back
521
Rob Palmer Back
522
Christine456 Back
523
Richard12659 Back
524
Richard12659 Back
525
Rainbow Back
526
Officer Bazza Back
527
B. Knight Back
528
Outofdarkness Back
529
Rafarhubarb Back
530
Charlie Back
531
SarahS Back
532
Northernpo Back
533
Petenorthern Back
534
SarahS Back
535
Charlie Back
536
Robert Palmer Back
537
B. Knight Back
538
John5555 Back
539
Cjdiver Back
540
Jack54 Back
541
B. Knight Back
542
Semantics Back
543
Officer Bazza Back
544
Robert Palmer Back
545
Outofdarkness Back
546
B. Knight Back
547
Mike Guilfoyle Back
548
Officer Bazza Back
549
Officer Bazza Back
550
Richard12659 Back
551
Gaywhymark Back
552
Owsbur Back
553
Redclaws Back
554
Jack54 Back
555
Rainbow Back
556
B. Knight Back
|