Lets Look at E3 (3)

Chapter 2 Courts

2.1 What does the model look like now? 

Following Transforming Rehabilitation the NPS has continued to provide a service to the courts but has felt the pressure of the new demands of providing a service to the CRCs and in particular the introduction of the Risk of Serious Recidivism (RSR) tool and Case Allocation System (CAS) processes. Changes to speed up court processes have also impacted on expectations of probation. 

Whilst the former trusts all provided court services (as per the specifications), the NPS inherited many different ways of delivering them and a wide range of costs. In some former trusts the work was largely delivered on the day in court by PSOs whereas others relied heavily on POs preparing reports away from court. The range of what is delivered (SDR, FDR, Oral), differing court team grade mix and variations in cost per report are significant. 

The E3 Court delivery proposal originates in the work led by the NPS Deputy Director for Courts and the Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group, to create a national model for court work delivery following the creation of the NPS. 

2.2 What do we want the future model to look like? 

The main objective of this set of proposals is to take the best of what is done in the NPS and to create a court delivery service aligned to the courts reform programme (and the NPS contractual requirements) which is known for its quality, reliability and value for money. 

We will continue to offer the same services to courts but do so using our resources more efficiently and effectively, and in a more consistent manner across England and Wales.

This will mean dedicated court teams doing the work that flows from their court, delivering as many reports as possible on the day, mainly delivered by appropriately trained PSOs. Reports will be delivered to a consistently high quality and in a format commensurate with their complexity, with SDRs reserved for those including assessments of dangerousness.

CRCs will receive their allocations on time, enforcement and report writing practice will be consistent across the NPS and variations will reflect only local geography. 

The Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group wanted to explore using the model for report delivery in Wales as a potential national approach. There is evidence that it offers excellent performance with on the day reports nearing 90%, largely written by PSOs. This suggests excellent value for money and a good fit with Transforming Summary Justice. Colleagues in Wales are satisfied that the quality of reports is good. 

The Courts Strategy and Operations ACO group also wished to explore the model for enforcement practice in London which manages enforcement through a hub supported by dedicated administrators. This was in response to the need to create a national model to replace a variety of legacy trust arrangements. The driver for this was the view that this would lead to improved quality and efficiency and probably a reduction in costs. There is, however, an acceptance that some areas of England and Wales are better suited to a hub approach than others and we recognise that geographical challenges will need to be considered.

The E3 proposal concludes with an exploration of removing the management of courts from the LDUs and keeping it within a separate divisional line management. This was a response to the view that without this the courts would always struggle to deliver best practice, potentially under-resourced and lacking the resilience to deal with staffing gaps or spikes in workload. 

2.3 End state proposals 

There are eight proposals within this work package, as follows: 

2.3.1 Dedicated court services teams will prepare all the PSRs requested in the courts they service and will conduct all the enforcement work of their court. 

The proposal will allow for the development of improved report writing, with appropriate and consistent advice and prepared at the most efficient level. The teams will be backed by dedicated administrators. The proposal is dependent upon the NPS obtaining sufficient space in court, the realisation of the Digital Courts programme, as well as access to appropriate IT and information from other agencies. NPS senior and local managers will continue to work with our criminal justice and other partners making the case for our requirements and ensuring that it is understood that without these we will be constrained. 

It is recognised that there is a risk that staff in court teams could become detached from the LDU and could find it difficult to move back to offender management but the risk can be mitigated by consistent and appropriate mobility expectations across the NPS, as referenced earlier.

The proposal is that court teams will prepare all reports and will rely on information from Offender Managers as they prepare reports on known offenders in NPS and the CRCs. There are good arguments for and against this, but a focus group of NPS operational courts staff did not support the alternative of Offender Managers in the NPS writing pre-sentence reports on these cases, instead preferring that Offender Managers prepare progress reports which they then pass to the court team. 

2.3.2 Our ‘customer’, the Courts is clear that they wanted to deliver a higher proportion of same day delivery reports. 

The NPS has thus far not set a target for the proportion of court reports to be completed on the day. The proposal is that, the challenges notwithstanding, there should be an NPS target. So we propose that we should aspire to 90% of all reports to be short format and on the day, (70% oral, 20% written) with only the remainder remitted as Standard Delivery Reports. (It is recognised that this is ambitious, more so for some divisions so this is an endstate target and would be unlikely to be realised before April 2017). 

• In the short term it is proposed that 75% of reports should be short format and prepared on the day, (55% oral, 20% written) with 10% of reports remitted as SDRs and the remaining 15% short format reports prepared later 

To achieve these targets effective local systems to provide required information in a timely manner will be essential.

2.3.3 The maximum number (likely to be up to 75%) of reports will be prepared by PSOs. 

We therefore propose that appropriately trained PSOs will form the majority of staff within the court teams, with PSRs reserved to POs only in certain specified circumstances. Clearly in some parts of the country this is already in place and is working well. Indeed it is the practice in Wales which combines excellent on the day productivity with extensive use of PSOs (with a PO backup) on which this proposal is based. 

In some parts of the country it is POs who are principally in court and the suggestion that court teams should be predominantly POs was considered. It was rejected because Wales offers a very persuasive, cost-effective model based on PSOs delivering good quality work, allowing them to exercise their skills to the full. 

PSOs will use their skills properly, working to the maximum of their role boundary. This will allow the focus of POs to be on the more complex work. However it is recognised that in some divisions not all PSOs have the skills to deliver the work envisaged. 

Our initial review of the PSO job description and role boundaries supports the view that this proposal is achievable. 

The proposal will require a period of adjustment to allow some PSOs to be trained and develop the necessary experience to operate in this new context. For some divisions, a re-profile of the workforce will also be necessary. PSOs will prepare reports on a wide range of cases. They will not be expected to complete reports on sex offenders and we will not require them to write reports on domestic abuse or high risk and complex cases until they have been trained to do so.

2.3.4 Administrative hubs will be created for courts. 

The Court Strategy and Operations ACO group was keen to explore how the administration of court work could be delivered more efficiently given the changed and increased volume of NPS work at court. The original proposal was that administration for court work would best be provided through a hub. 

What is now envisaged is not a physical hub but one which is virtual and possibly combined with other areas of activity. It is suggested though that this proposal should be deferred until later so that the NPS can respond to later developments with the digital courts without a second wave of major disruption to the administrative staff who support court work delivery.

2.3.5 Streamlining RSR/CAS. 

The proposal is that the process of determining whether an offender should be allocated to the NPS or the CRC and of notifying colleagues in prison about this should be streamlined. This is a complex issue and the ideal resolution will allow staff to complete the RSR as quickly and efficiently as possible, reducing double-keying and duplication but allowing CRC and prison colleagues to get the information they need in time. 

The RSR is a predictor based on the most current and relevant research into future behaviour. It was originally intended to be used not just for allocation but also for ongoing risk assessment. E3 has been considering ways in which the process could be made more efficient while still providing sufficient information to allocate cases. No final decisions have been made. The types of options being considered are:

• Reviewing the format of the risk assessment in the CAS 
• Reducing the information required in cases that are automatically allocated to the NPS 
• Reconsidering when the static and dynamic versions of RSR should be used We will continue this work collaboratively with colleagues across the system recognising that any decision to change arrangements may impact on others. 

2.3.6 Effective proposal framework. 

To support the development of consistent good quality reports we propose that the NPS will develop an effective proposal framework to be used by staff preparing reports. This will be based upon the work developed by Commissioning Strategy Group (CSG) on effectiveness, build upon existing proposal frameworks and will support demand management strategies.

2.3.7 Divisional enforcement hubs. 

It has been proposed that enforcement activity will be grouped into divisional hubs supported by specialist teams including enforcement officers. This role, covering all magistrates’ enforcement work across a division could produce efficiency of process and scale, particularly in a metropolitan area. 

In some rural areas due to travel distance and the lower volume of enforcement cases, generic court teams are arguably best placed to manage all work flowing from court including the administration of enforcement work. Part of the proposal is to have administrative hubs (either virtual or physical units) to act as a single point of contact for all divisional enforcement work. However, changes resulting from digital courts may mean hubs are not fit for purpose in future and would need to be changed soon after their inception. 

The NPS needs to examine whether other administrative work could also be undertaken from a hub, making the hub more resilient.

Pilots have been established in the North West (NW) and North East (NE) divisions. The NW pilot has an administration hub and enforcement officer role, a model which has worked well in London for some time. The NE pilot has administrative hubs with a generic court PSO role undertaking enforcement in courts, a rural model. The pilots are still in their early stages and evaluation is not yet complete. 

While the outcome of the pilots is not yet clear this is not yet a confirmed proposal but it is included for information. The E3 board will review the outcome of the pilots before making a final decision about whether or not this should be a formal proposal. Meanwhile, the work being undertaken to review job descriptions will include the Enforcement Officer role. As stated earlier, there is currently a variation in the pay “banding” of Enforcement Officers with some at pay band 3 and others at band 4. Our view is that the Enforcement Officer role can appropriately be undertaken by band 3 staff. This is subject to the review of the job description and the job evaluation process. 

2.3.8 A review of the management structure for courts. 

There has been discussion about arrangements for the management of courts and specifically an option that courts could be led by a dedicated Head of Function outside the LDU/Cluster structure. The rationale for this consideration is that it will ensure centrally agreed strategy and policy is implemented quickly and consistently across the country and is not vulnerable to local interpretation or local resource pressures. 

This could improve the resourcing of court work and management, and allow managers to move resources within the court work function, without relying on local LDU/Cluster offender management staff. In theory this is possible now but in practice does not happen.

This model does though risk detaching LDUs from their courts so they will be unable to draw on court staff when under pressure (and vice versa). Using the resource flexibly may be challenging over large geographical areas. External dependencies (e.g. offender management in custody review, court closures) may impact on court structures and spans of control and significant changes to NPS governance structures now may be premature.

This option is being piloted in the North West as is the alternative model in the South West and London (in effect the status quo). By January 2016 the interim results of the NW pilot of this model will be available. It is recommended that following this there will be a further review and the option will either be confirmed as a proposal or withdrawn. 

2.4 Impact on service delivery 

Our approach is consistent with commitments being made by all Criminal Justice partners to improve speed and quality of delivery. 

Preparing more reports on the day depends on getting the information the officer needs to make an informed judgement about risk and a professional proposal. This enables us to protect potential victims and to support the delivery of speedy justice, something cited frequently by victims as important. This is a particular issue in domestic abuse cases. 

We will continue to work with the police to make sure that court teams are able to get the information they need (on the day) to prepare reports. We appreciate that safeguarding information is difficult to get on the day in most areas but it is rarely crucial to the sentencing decision.

Our proposals mean that the skills of PSOs will be fully used, while utilising POs for those reports that only they can prepare. The proposals will improve NPS productivity and fewer people will be sentenced without reports. Clearly this requires having enough appropriately trained PSOs in each division (see below). 

We believe that dedicated court teams will provide an improved service and relieve the burden on field teams by preparing reports as efficiently and effectively as possible. We will need to guard against the risks that staff in field teams lose their PSR writing skills and become less familiar with court processes and that the court staff become detached from the field and find it hard to return to offender management work. 

A national proposal framework (evidence-based) will support the delivery of a consistent, effective and efficient service in court across England and Wales. 

2.5 Impact on staff 

These proposals will have the greatest impact upon PSOs. To deliver more reports they will need to undertake training (beyond what is in the current VQ3 qualification) so that they are able to conduct risk assessments (including on domestic abuse cases) and are able to complete OASys. There is the potential for some modules from the forthcoming Community Justice Learning programme (which will replace the PQF) to meet this need. This is something which is being explored further.

The complement of PSOs varies significantly across the NPS divisions and some may need to increase the number of PSOs to implement our proposed new way of working. Given that the NPS is not using PSOs as fully as possible and there is considerable pressure on POs, these proposals will benefit both grades of staff allowing PSOs to fulfil their potential and POs to concentrate on the work that only they have the qualification, training and skills to deliver. 

Excellent administration will underpin the successful delivery of the proposals and while it is possible to implement some administrative changes for enforcement (virtual hubs where these do not exist already), it would be a mistake to engage in major administrative change now, before the impact of digital courts is clear. In the next phase of E3 an administrative review will be needed to reshape how and what we do to work alongside the changed court service. 

2.6 Conclusion 

We believe these proposals will enable the NPS to continue to provide the level and quality of service required by courts and CRCs within the financial and staffing resources available to us.

(more to follow)