Saturday 22 February 2014

Post Sentence Assessment - Trojan Horse?

Yet again this blog throws up a fascinating discussion, this time on the West Yorkshire initiative called 'Post Sentence Assessment'. I first heard about this in 2012 and started to write about it, but it ended up languishing in a long-forgotten corner of the laptop, until today that is. This is what I was going to say about it back then:-

I was recently alerted to some discussion on the NAPO forum pages concerning an interesting sentencing initiative 'Post Sentence Assessment' up there in West Yorkshire. I'm told that the recent NAPO conference in York was treated to a workshop by their Director of Operations Mark Siddall who made a fleeting appearance at the tail end and thus was sadly unable to take a more active part in proceedings.

It seems that during a somewhat pedestrian powerpoint presentation he was nevertheless able to offer some fascinating insights into how he took on both the senior judges of Leeds and Bradford in a 'he who dares wins' encounter over dinner. Referring to 'eye watering' exchanges with the judges, he apparently quoted 'chapter and verse' when they suggested that what was being proposed might not be legal. If true, a particularly risky strategy at the best of times I would have thought. He reported that both the Ministry of Justice and NOMS had concerns also, but the scheme has been running since January and of course if it delivers as promised, shall we say it does nicely accord with government policy, whether it's strictly legal or not. 

Well of course things have moved on considerably and clearly West Yorkshire felt they'd struck gold because I'm told they tried to sell their brilliant idea to other bemused Trusts, but with no success. By the way, even though Mark Siddall seems to be very happy taking all the credit for the wheeze, I'm also told that it wasn't his brainwave at all, but rather that of Sarah Jarvis who left for pastures new over the Pennines shortly afterwards.

Interestingly, another source tells me that when Jeremy Wright paid a visit to West Yorkshire he latched onto PSA straight away and could immediately see how it could be a key part of the TR omnishambles. So, well done West Yorks!

Anyway, I'm not going to say much more on a subject I know little about and will let the comment thread from yesterday take up the story:-

I'd just like to make a mention of what someone put as a comment on yesterday's blog. It is regarding West Yorkshire's Post Sentence Assessment. What I understand there is that instead of having a year's Supervision Requirement, say, they are proposing something like a 20 day Specified Activity Requirement and expecting offenders to attend 20 times within the 12 months of the Community Order. 

The problem I have heard, loud and clear, is that most of these Orders are ended without the Days actually being completed. Indeed many Orders have very few 'Days' completed because people don't get on programmes or groups and aren't seen when they are on waiting lists, or just aren't suitable for working in groups, or don't turn up. An FOI request would be interesting to help clarify the evidence, but I hear that senior managers have as much as admitted this and blamed front line staff. 


The problem for any privateers if working this way would be if they then tried to close the case on NDelius at the 12 month mark and took payment, they would be open to claims of fraud in the same way that Serco are now on tagging contracts. In fact, I think the way that PSA is structured makes this almost inevitable. If West Yorkshire's way becomes a cornerstone of TR through the creation of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements the future is perilous for private companies. Much better for them to have Supervision and Programme Requirements.


In my mind, any such contracted PSA system in private hands would lead to high levels of media scrutiny, reputational damage and possible criminal investigation. Let's face it, we can't currently end 200 hours of UPW when only 130 had been completed. To claim the 200 hours would be fraud, so the future of contracts looks very troubled indeed if government and companies go down this route.


*************************

But if WY aren't completing Orders, shouldn't we know how much or how many are being completed? This would give a baseline of what existing staff can provide and give contractors an idea of how much performance they would need to add to meet their contracts? Am I missing something here? Sounds like an FOI request to me.

**********************

You need to read up on the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. In effect this signals the end of court imposed specified activities, giving all the discretion to the CRC provider to determine the programme of supervision. 

A successful completion will be getting to the end of the order, not completing the actual number of days which are simply set as a maximum. This does not affect unpaid work or treatment requirements. This is supposed to free up the new providers to do what works for rehabilitation.


************************

The WY PSA model, was I think, an early attempt to shape CRC work. Community Orders for whatever period may have 15 activity days, 30, 50 or 60. Nothing in between. It is true that Supervision as a Requirement, is not actively sought in the majority of cases, generally reserved for Sexual Offenders and DV cases; who continue to get fairly long periods on a Community Order, coupled with interventions such as NSOG (60) or Building Better Relationships (50) both High Activity Requirements, or Safer Relationships (30).

The low/med risk cases complete their activity days, based on Post Sentence Assessment and may include; 8 x OB groupwork sessions (Action for Change) 2 x Victim Awareness Module, 6 x ETE sessions, 10 x sessions with a drug/alcohol support group/intervention, or Hate Crime Module, Drink Driving Group etc etc. I'm sure you get the idea. Once the sessions/activity days are complete you can terminate the case - it is done, as there is no supervision activity to continue for the full 12 months. SSSO, Curfews, AC's and UPW can stand alone.

There are however serious administration issues associated with the PSA which WY are trying to get sorted. The original idea was to reduce the number of 1-1 supervision orders, that is for sure. However, to monitor the system, you need to record, contacts etc under the right line in NDelius and this is easier said than done. You need a procedure, that everyone buys into and fully understands; and it assumes other partner organisations etc will give you information re: attendance etc.
 


A major problem of PSA, from my perspective is that there are not enough activities running in order to get clients through their court orders, quickly, whilst motivation remains high and if there is no supervision, you lose people. Long, very long waiting lists for Sex Offender Treatment, for instance means that more of what would be group work or interventions work, is having to be done by OM's and in my view being put onto 'pathways' to treatment, which are driven by numbers, as opposed to the appropriateness of the clients passage into treatment. For example, rather than do a core programme, OM's do the initial 4 sessions and the men, as they are men, are fast tracked into Better Lives, or Relapse Prevention, whatever you want to call it. 

It is/was a brave attempt to focus attention, provide a wide variety of interventions and to retain the respect of the judiciary, but just because they have done away with National Standards in favour of professional judgement and desistence, the staff resources to run programmes, groups etc are just not there. 

WYT are getting tough on staff, printing off charts to demonstrate failings in recording etc which may reflect badly on PSA, but in reality, the performance charts are artificial, as the monitoring system makes no allowances for things we cannot actually achieve, with the best will in the world and so all it does is demoralise staff.

Now if you fling all this into the mix of Crams to delius, new templates for everything, r-oasys, all of which are still throwing up all kinds of glitches, and TR on top....I am surprised WY staff have battled on, or maybe we are just ahead of the game, and things can hardly get any worse.


********************

You put in a lot of detail in there, and I kind of followed it (some of it), and thanks for trying to explain it. But doesn't all the evidence suggest that it is one to one work and relationships that makes the difference? Not groups, activities and blunt interventions? That is my experience and I think it's the message of desistance research. Sounds like you are trying to get square pegs in round holes...that surely is a very expensive route to failure. Maybe a Freedom of Information request might prove or disprove that?.

********************

Sounds reminiscent of a work fare type scenario whereby a schedule of tasks was presented to the claimant by the PbR agency to facilitate eligibility for benefits. The catch? It was never achievable. Not meeting the criteria led to sanction, whereas anyone claiming to have completed all the tasks was sanctioned (& in some cases referred for prosecution) for fraud. The financial benefit to the agency was its success in detecting fraudulent claims, a prized criteria worth more than being successful with the client.

The wiles of the cash hungry are beyond our wildest imaginations. And even holier-than-thou MPs like Blunkett take the shilling.

Maybe we pay a retainer to our most innovative clients in return for ideas as to how to maximise profit in the shark infested world of dodgy business?


**********************

I started the thread re WYPT and 'PSA'. I am guessing that anon at 20:57 is currently employed by the same Trust . .too much inside information to be an outsider. My aim was not to educate re 'Activity Requirements' . . you'll all get that soon enough! but more to highlight the extent to which senior management has colluded with MOJ in the whole process of TR.

Vast resources, both staff and finance, have been pumped into making sure PSA is up and running. Alongside this similar resources have been used to make a 'Mutual' bid for the CRC. 'PSA' had been in the planning for months before roll out and needed the authority from Judges in the WY area. Similarly specialist 'low risk' teams were created and PSO's were recruited on temporary contracts specifically to manage low risk service - users.

 
I sat in a briefing with Mark Siddall (ops director) as far back as Jan 2012 when he was actively promoting PSA / Activity Req's as the future . . .we would be experts in delivery....we should be careful as to whom we shared our knowledge . . .we would be needed to deliver the model to other areas . . .and yes . . .we would be able to sell our expertise.

 
I'm now getting to my point! How did he know all this so long ago? Given that this whole thing was his baby, recognition at Buck Palace etc; why, just when he could bathe in all its glory, does he decide to take early retirement? Why did Sue Hall accept a senior position with CRC only to pull out days later ?


Something doesn't add up. People know more than they are telling. Please will at least one CEO or the like, spill the beans. It will inevitably "come out in the wash" but timing could be crucial.


Just to finish . . .all this gratis TR preparation work in W. Yorks was done with the full knowledge of both NAPO and Unison. I was sat next to my Union rep in the very briefing I refer to above!


*************************

I read about WYPT with interest but can't help feeling you should be looking to Durham and Teesside Trust for the forerunner for the CRC model. All offenders complete the 10 session (but could take up to 16 with reviews) Citizenship Programme with the OM either PO or PSO grade dependent on ROH. They then pass onto a CSS officer (not Tier 4, MAPPA, CP or DV cases) who is a PSO grade and can hold 100 cases, there are examples of this. Supervision can then include using bulk reporting centres staffed by volunteers (yes truly).

I bet the MOJ have watched this model with interest. I hear practitioners were very concerned about the Citizenship Programme but it was imposed with a very tight fist by the exec team. No-one gets to know their offenders they are simply processed and then move on. When their Chief Exec also became Cumbria's Chief he tried to impose this model on them but as he was less influential there - not having appointed the exec team himself - it did not happen. This model has been running in Durham for three years so there is a lot of data on it available.


39 comments:

  1. The citizenship programme has, in some areas segued into the Positive Futures model....a misnomer if ever there was one.....FOI request regarding the hidden data of the CP is likely to unveil the true cost of this approach...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many Positive Futures can we have? There's a Butler Trust award winning version (WY again), there are numerous subs misuse versions, and there's the Giv version as championed by Catch-22 -

      http://www.catch-22.org.uk/expertise/social-action/positive-futures/

      Delete
    2. Positive Futures was a national youth crime prevention programme funded by the Home Office and delivered locally by 91 projects in deprived communities across England and Wales. Central funding ceased on 31 March 2013. However, over 60% of projects have secured funding from police and crime commssioners and other local partners and will continue. Each project has a strong local focus that delivers services which are tailored to the needs of young people from the toughest backgrounds within their communities.

      The programme targeted and supported 10 to 19-year-olds to avoid them becoming drawn into crime, drug and alcohol misuse and help them in moving forward with their lives. Young people were given the chance to develop the skills needed to get on to a positive career path and take on roles to become active and responsible citizens, such as through volunteering and mentoring and a range of activities including street football, yoga, kayaking, fishing, poetry, film-making and circus skills.

      Jim Brown says - it all sounds a bit like Intermediate Treatment from the 70's and 80's - nothing new under the sun, but we keep inventing the wheel in order to further managers and their careers.

      Delete
  2. Like many things that the Govt are trying to introduce , I would insist on evidence of success. PSA has lukewarm success at best , the initial review was barely lifting the tiles and I have not seen a follow up study. From this blog even staff are not trumpeting the project.
    I think the relationship between PSA and TR is "by chance" not a conspiracy, it is clear that having a flexible approach will always save money and staff time.
    As for the DTV approach , just ask the Northumbria Trust about citizenship ......a cause of great animosity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, and it's shit. Any practitioner caught using this should be shot as it's nothing more than a lazy way to give the appearance that you are helping offenders. The original architech of this buggered off from DTV once he got his Masters which, aligned with the inability to sell if to other trusts, gives an indication of how much cop it is.

    Many many times, when the shit hits the fan with offenders, one of the first questions by SPO' is 'has he completed Citizenship'. It's deeply ingrained into the psyche of most managers and practitioners and deeply corrosive to the skills set that we should have as both practitioners and human beings replacing common sense with a tick box approach.

    It would be ideal for the CRC.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you're being disrespectful to the CRC staff who are the same as NPS staff remember?!!!!

      Delete
    2. No I don't think that is what is intended or implied. I think the point is that CRC management will be dictated by the guys controlling the money - staff of whatever hue will have to obey or be out of the door.

      Delete
  4. Having just looked at the wording for Rehabilitation Activity requirements in the bill, it stipulates "A relevant order imposing a rehabilitation activity requirement must specify the maximum number of days for which the offender may be instructed to participate in activities". Later is says "The activities that responsible officers may instruct offenders to participate in include - activities forming an accredited programme; activities whose purpose is reparative".

    Some points for discussion from that:
    1. If there is no minimum number of activity days, what can contractors get away with under law to claim their fees for service?
    2. If contractors were to deliver less days than the maximum (as WYPT appear to be doing if previous comment is correct) at what point does Jeremy Wright's assertion fail - that community sentences must be seen as robust and have integrity, and at what point will there be outrage in the media and the public if contractors are seen to be under-delivering, regardless of what is legal. If I were a bidder I would be thinking of giving up right now. The financial costs of trying to avoid damage to reputation will be phenomenal, and quite possibly futile anyway.
    3. this risks losing integrity with sentencers, especially if information is that actual instructions to offenders are minimal. The removal of supervision requirements suggests the only alternative would be to impose custody.

    ReplyDelete
  5. All this reinvention and trophy programme shit reminds me of a warning issued in my early days as an apprentice probation officer - "Beware Geeks bearing gifts". It was, I seem to recall, a rallying cry to those developing "new radical programmes" (e.g TFEC) to keep their feet on the ground and avoid the seduction of shiny plaudits and the promise of the world as an oyster.

    Pandora's Box was nevertheless left open.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm prepared to accept that there are a range of motivations for bringing in approaches like PSA. Among these, though probably unspoken, will be the possibility for earning reputation, and money. Along with this I think there is a genuine desire to improve the standard of practice of some staff (and maybe rein in those who went native some time ago) - but this very quickly slipped into standardisation and levelling down skills, not enabling practitioners. In my trust the roll-out of SEEDS came with desistance fanfares and dewy-eyed treatises about the importance of individual skill, but the counter-revolutionary tanks of "you do this work with everyone, all the time, or you'll answer to us" have now rolled in. Any good intentions have just fattened up the goose for the privatisation Christmas.

    Not so much mixed as shredded metaphors, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In May 2011 Russell Bruce, current boss of the two most northerly Probation Trust's shared his knowledge some time ago with folk north of the English Border: -

    http://www.cjalb.co.uk/uploads/Workshop%20newsletter%20May%202011.pdf

    Extracts

    “SHARED SERVICES, CITIZENSHIP AND INTEGRATED OFFENDER MANAGEMENT

    As Chief Executive of Durham Tees Valley (DTV) Probation Trust, Russell is the accountable officer for all the services provided and delivers these goods and services using an evidence based approach.
    One similarity is the change in role of the Probation Officer which has
    changed from one of befriending offenders to reducing re-offending whilst
    having to use the same tools that are available.

    Choose the right people to share with using due diligence (there was a possible Probation service that could have been included in the merger but through due diligence it was recognised this would not work out.

    There has to be something in it for everyone.

    Need to recognise the fear around change which will materialise in staff and customers – insecure staff are a business risk.

    CITIZENSHIP

    Citizenship is an evidence based supervision tool based on the ‘what works’ principles.

    The hypothesis behind it is you use a structured assessment tool to give you the available evidence to address the problems that can make a difference and discard the other things that evidence shows doesn’t work.

    The structured diagnosis determines the response that is required for the individual and is linked to Intelligent Offender Management which identifies the people who hurt their community the most.

    Since introducing Citizenship, the level of re-offending in Durham Tees Valley has decreased to 35% (after 12 months) from 48%.

    EVALUATION
    In County Durham, results showed a reduction of 18% in the number of people re-offending after 2 years. There were 6,000 cases evaluated, more than in any other accredited programme in England & Wales.

    The Durham evaluation has been published in the Journal of Experimental Criminology in the USA demonstrating the robustness of the approach.

    Teeside involved 1,091 cases using a randomised approach which gives a higher standard of evaluation. The results were quite different with the control group merging with the Citizenship group after 9 months (i.e. no difference in re-offending levels between the Citizenship group and the Control Group). However, only 38% of the people supposed to have been managed on Citizenship were and whilst further research is needed in the future,it does demonstrate a 20% improvement in the first 9 months.

    Professional discretion has to be inspirational & motivational but it must be on the matters that are relevant and most effective. There was much discussion around the new National Outcomes and Standards in Scotland which are based on desistance. It was agreed that Citizenship and its evaluation will allow staff to look at evidence based outcomes in reality and allow them to get a better understanding of the theory. Russell concluded this section by stressing the need to make incremental change.

    Citizenship introduces a structured approach which is a totally new approach. It uses evidence to establish what drives an individual’s offending and opens up the opportunity for broader offender management on drug & alcohol treatment; supporting pathways into the community; developing skills and supporting people in crisis. It’s not what you do but the way that you do it.. Social Work can’t do it alone

    As Chief Executive of the DTV Probation Trust, Russell is charged with running a business therefore he needed something to provide the evidence behind the business should he ever be in the position where it needs to be sold.

    Even with effective working there are always individuals or groups of people who don’t benefit and these are the people who go onto re-offend. This raises 3 key questions:

    ? Who goes onto to commit multiple acquisitive crimes

    ? What offences do they commit

    ? What are their characteristics ”

    ReplyDelete
  8. Of course, all the evidence suggests 1-1 - face to face working/therapeutic relationships are the most helpful and productive means by which to encourage, achieve and sustain change.................which is why all these tin pot projects are doomed, Capt Mannering!

    They rely heavily on group work, and whilst I have always been a supporter of group work, it has always been as an add on, not the be all and end all. This way of working, lacks any need to build relationships or to get inside the head and lives of clients, because 'someone else delivers it and it's a template, it has no soul'. It could be delivered by a volunteer, a private company, an 'old lag' a charity, or other organisation....of which we know very little - about their motivation, their ethical base or in some causes their legitimacy. The 'OM' - PO or PSO becomes an administrator, nothing else. Just as with the introduction of conducting key milestones in the lives of prisoners, by video links, phone conferences and through 3rd parties, bollocks, all of it.

    I was always excited by the term end to end management, i.e. you wrote the report, and saw out whatever the court imposed, offering continuity and knowledge and hopefully, the trust which began to emerge at the Report stage. Also, because it trumpets the relationships we form with people, it supports the idea that a single person, appropriately trained and qualified, yes those dirty words, can have a significant, neigh humongous impact on a client. TR, like PSA and similar plots, dispense with this in favour of sound bites, without any substance. TR is doing a fine job, assisted by Trusts who say nothing, in transforming our clients into commodities........and the results will be disastrous for clients and painful for those of us, who continue to try to derail TR, but whose voices are largely ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm friendly with a PSO who now works in West Yorkshire. She says that Post Sentence Assessment is used by some practitioners to good effect (especially where other agencies are involved but this requires good knowledge of local resources) and in principle it was a good idea. She says it is a mess though because the expectation is that most offenders do a group to cover their days. The groups are untested, they invite 20 or so to the first group (this is 20 people who may not have been seen for many weeks or even months because of waiting lists so are not motivated) in the hope that some might turn up, and the groups complete with only a small handful still attending. As a result most finish their orders without attending many times and without any meaningful intervention as staff are told not to see people while they are waiting for groups, and the orders are very difficult to breach. Word has quickly got out that people just need to be a bit difficult - eg have GP appointments, sick notes for depression, or claim that if they don't attend JobCetre they will get sanctioned - to avoid groups, appointments and breach.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is utter bloody madness. Staff are overheads and clients are collateral, the bottom line ie profit is king. Let's hear it for the Tories and Lib Dems !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A point perfectly highlighted in Andrew's post above: "As Chief Executive of the DTV Probation Trust, Russell [Bruce] is charged with running a business". There's the rub. Nowt about working with clients. Its about a profitable business model with people as widgets to be processed in as cost-effective means as possible. Won't be long before we have the introduction of Japanese industrial 'just-in-time' techniques, CRC sponsorship by Toyota in Derbyshire? By Nissan in the Teesside? By Honda in Wiltshire? Court to Induction to Activity to Completion.

      Efficient use of public funds is not criminal, but using that as a means to effect de-humanisation of the client group is. Informing people about ways in which they can improve their lives and behaviour and reduce the impact upon others is invaluable, but it will not be achieved by simply processing groups of 'assets'.

      My caseload is not a collection of credit notes waiting to be cashed in. It is primarily a collection of variously damaged, disenfranchised, disturbed and dysfunctional men and women who have never been listened to, never been shown any respect, never had more than ten minutes with another person without being abused physically, emotionally, or verbally. The fact that they self-medicate with (variously and/or collectively) adrenalin, alcohol, opiates, amphetamine, benzodiazepines, legal highs should not come as a surprise.

      Most of them don't like me because I am part of the system. Many don't want to talk to me because they don't trust me. Some have been in our system for almost ten years (due to back-to-back Orders), others are just starting a lengthy relationship, and yet others are taking what will be their first and only glancing blow with our service. This in addition to those with lifetime requirements of contact.

      This is the joy of my caseload, and my professional experience is richer as a result. I am not an accountant. I am not an administrator. I am not a production operative. I am a Probation Officer. As of very soon I will no longer be employed as such. I am sad, I am angry and I fear for the impact upon everyone.

      Delete
    2. very well put. This society is rapidly changing into something quite nasty.

      Delete
    3. There is some powerful testimony coming through and I'm going to republish very soon - thank you, everyone!

      Delete
    4. Republish to your heart's content m'dear, Grayling and TR aint going away. My 13:49 post won't touch anyone in authority. A family friend 'up country' told me that Wright was a political sponge when he visited Cumbria. They were certain that his aide was taking detailed notes whilst Jezza soaked up the carefully crafted and (probably) diluted criticism (???), colouring up (no doubt with rage), but exercising his skills as a barrister by not allowing himself to be distracted from his script. Having had past experience of ministerial rage first hand in a previous life, I would not want to be on the list made by that aide when the pain is subsequently shared out.

      Political people live a different life in a different world. They can get knighthoods for being drunk and incapable. They can get ennobled for sexual impropriety. Assuming they are 'in favour' and haven't caused too much embarrassment, they are as close to invincible as modern political life allows them to be.

      I was 'backstage' some 30 years ago when a cabinet minister tried to make a speech but was so pissed he couldn't stand. His aide made a brief appearance to the waiting audience of invited guests explaining there had been "a call from Number Ten". The speech was handed out on photocopied sheets and the right honourable lush was whisked away in his ministerial limo. Not an eye was batted, not a word was uttered. The speech was reported as if it had happened, the message was delivered, no-one gave a shit.

      Delete
    5. Thank you. That made me smile. In a previous incarnation I was briefly a sound assistant for a broadcast company. I expected our favourite 80's rock'n'roll stars to stink of booze and be covered in coke, but it was invariably politicians of all hues and levels of seniority that were either off their faces - or well on the way - whilst I struggled to wire up a mic. Never voted since, seemed utterly pointless. Sad to read what is happening to probation.

      Delete
  11. http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2014/feb/21/morale-standstill-civil-service-people-survey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder what future results are going to look like after the civil service acquire several thousand disenchanted new members later this year.

      Delete
    2. Dissatisfaction with pay and benefits is hampering staff engagement in the civil service and undermining progress made in increasing morale, an analysis of the latest civil service people survey reveals.

      The benchmark level of employee engagement across Whitehall is 58% – unchanged from the previous survey in 2012 and matching the 2009 level, despite five of the nine key areas of questioning showing improvements on last year.

      Satisfaction with pay and benefits has slumped from an average of 37% before the coalition's programme of deep departmental spending cuts and three-year pay freeze, to just 29% – by far the lowest of all the measures.

      Morale is higher in the senior civil service (SCS), where scores are again consistently higher than for the civil service as a whole, as they have been each year since the first comparable survey in 2009. The SCS includes senior members of the diplomatic service and senior military officers working in a civilian capacity. As of March 2013 there were 4,340 people working at SCS or equivalent level.

      But an analysis by the Institute for Government (IfG) has shown that the gap in satisfaction with pay and benefits between the SCS and other respondents has widened to 5% from 2% last year.

      Delete
  12. I have no knowledge of post sentence assessment, so I've looked up this definition on the WYPT website.

    http://www.westyorksprobation.org.uk/our-work/post-sentence-assessment/

    Having worked within the work programme I can see at just a glance the many ways this model can be exploited to gain sucessful outcomes.
    It appears to me to enable the private sector to 'park' the most difficult cases to manage, by tailoring the offenders contact with services to an absolute minimum.
    The model may have value in the public sector, but it's easy to see how it can be used or shaped to suit the needs of a very hungry cash cow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is post sentence assessment?
      This is unique to West Yorkshire Probation and West Yorkshire courts. It changes the way rehabilitation for offenders is sentenced and delivered. The aim is to get a better fit between sentence and offender's need to ensure the sentence is tailored to each individual and therefore improves compliance and reduces reoffending.

      This has reduced the number of breaches, enabled more court reports to be prepared on the day and reduced the number of people returned to court for resentence and therefore reduced costs for Probation and courts.

      What is changing at court?
      Instead of sentencing people to Accredited Programmes, named Specified Activities and in some instances supervision, the rehabilitative option is a generic Activity Requirement.

      All other Community Sentence requirements remain, eg Community Payback, curfew, Drug Rehabilitation Requirements etc.

      What is an Activity Requirement?
      An Activity Requirement will be made up of a range of meaningful rehabilitative work including group activities, group supervision, education, training and employment work, one-to-one work and signposting to other agencies.

      The exact content of the Activity Requirement will be determined by the Probation Officer at a post sentence assessment and the content will address offending need and be meaningful.

      What is the post sentence assessment?
      In the post sentence assessment, the Probation Officer works closely with the offender to find out more about how entrenched their offending behaviour is, what factors have influenced the offending and what factors are supporting them to refrain from offending. This helps the Probation Officer to determine what rehabilitative elements should be included in each offender's sentence plan.

      The offender user is fully involved in identifying areas of need which means they better understand their sentence plan and are more likely to comply. However, the decision about what work an offender should do remains with the Probation Officer.

      What happens next?

      The Probation Officer oversees the sentence plan and ensures that the offender completes all the elements set out.
      The Probation Officer works closely with colleagues to make sure that all group work and work with other agencies is completed successfully or any issues are addressed quickly and appropriately.

      Once the days of the Activity Requirement are complete and any other elements of the sentence are complete, eg Community Payback hours, the sentence finishes.

      There is no change in the breach process. If an offender does not complete the activities that are included in their sentence plan, they will be returned to court for resentence and could even be sent to prison.

      Delete
  13. Interestingly in other parts of the world others who look on the changes in probation with bemusement , the focus has started to be on what work is undertaken after a program has been completed. Indeed training research shows that we only retain 10 % of any training (which in effect many of these courses are) and it is the reinforcement of that learning and a commitment to learning that allows us to develop . Here it appears to be the complete opposite do the course and off you go. Any probation officer worth his salt knows that some of the best work you do is in the second and third years of a probation order when it is just yourself and the client.

    ReplyDelete
  14. These outsourcing companies ae happy to settle for the illusion of intervention and have no commitment to securing change. A completed programme is an outcome that will secure a payment. End of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats exactly it. And the cheapest way to create that illusion will be the primary focus.

      Delete
    2. I must come clean I have always had problems with CBT and accredited programmes in general. I see them as sausage machines although I have seen people benefit from them but in my experience(prison) most just go through them and tick a box. Be that as it may what I want to know is how much do they cost and who gets the money; I have never known but I have always wondered why there is little ever said about them?

      Does anyone have this information or is it another FOI?

      Delete
  15. Your all making the assumption that 'Activity Requirement' = accredited programme ! Oh no it doesn't . . .it means x no.of days of "meaningfull activity". . this can be any old shite delivered by absolutely anyone, it is the model for CRC. Please don't get me started on 'Action For Change' !. . . non - accredited piffle delivered to any size groups where s.u.'s (yes I'm brainwashed) can all have different offences; be of different ages; different sex and be serving a community sentence or be on Licence. Get this, the content can be made up as you go along . . .would you believe a trip to the local theatre was deemed a days 'meaningfull activity' . . I kid you not .

    ReplyDelete
  16. Accredited programmes have not simply remained the same and the comment about sausage machine is insulting to such staff, the currentrpgrammes are based on desistance work and when well delivered offer real opportunities to help change. Staff work int group work setting amd individually with group members. Of course they can be badly delivered as can anything...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probationrelic 22:32

      Current programmes open to and offered by probation services are not under question as they stand. They're delivered and foucused on effecting change to offending behaviour and helping to change lives for the better.
      The concern being raised is when the private sector have responsibility and access to these tools, where the focus changes from changing lives and assisting people, to profit margins and shareholder dividends.
      Probation is no longer going to be a service, it's an industry.
      The private sector will take everything they can and gear it towards profit. That is it's primary focus. Social values, public safety, clients development will all come a very distant second to happy sharehoders.

      Delete
    2. 'the comment about sausage machine is insulting to such staff'

      So what? Suck it up. as you say yourself, programmes can 'be badly delivered '. I hate attempts to stifle discussion by people who act 'offended'

      Delete
    3. No ones acting offended, merely reply to a generalisation about programmes, I don't see how that is stifling discussion. Maybe a little thought before replying would help!

      Delete
  17. Surely the whole point of the Specified Activity is that the Court knows precisely what activity is specified when the sentence IS MADE? This sounds very uncomfortable to me and a bit like making it up as we go along on the basis not of what that individual needs but rather, what might be available at the time the post sentence assessment is done. This really is shameful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark Siddall is particularly proud of having successfully conned the local Judiciary into giving up their discretion and handed over to Probation completely.

      Delete
  18. The way I remember it was CBT programmes were imposed from above and replaced probation programmes that were designed from the bottom up. And we all know that one-to-one desistance work and RJ have the best results in reducing re-offending; CBT accredited programmes come second best. Why have we accepted the imposition from above and neglected and forgotten the good programmes we designed and delivered for years? Is it a sort of Stockholm syndrome.

    CBT followed up with one-to-one work is probably the best way to operate, I just think there are better ways and many of them, flexibility and critical imagination are the key.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anon 09:53 - I agree entirely! The in-house developed SOTP was tailored to each client according to their needs - some couldn't handle groupwork so had 2 to 1 work - we had a special group for the Learning Disabled, Relapse Prevention Group and Voluntary Support Group - all swept away when Accredited Programmes came along - one size fits all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And yet again pockets are filled and gongs handed out to the toe-the-line "exprts" imposing CBT-lite shite across the board.

      Delete
    2. Wow! The anti accredited programmes agenda is really building and I didn't realise how much you dis
      Iked them Jim.

      Delete