Lets Look at E3 (7)

Chapter 6 Approved Premises (AP)

6.1 What does the model look like now? 

Approved Premises (AP) provide accommodation, oversight and support to the most complex and challenging cases managed in the community. Their residents are almost all on licence, having committed serious sexual and violent offences, and most are assessed as high risk of serious harm. There are currently 101 AP across the NPS, of which 89 are directly managed by the NPS (the rest being independent AP). They vary in their number of residents (nine have fewer than 15 beds, seven have more than 30), and also in staffing structures. Whilst they are all required to operate within the framework of the AP Manual (PI 32/2014), in practice there are a range of models of operation. 

The main E3 proposals for AP address referrals, an operating model and a staffing model. We want to harmonise AP provision across the NPS, using best practice as the benchmark and ensuring value for money. The proposals would be likely to mean changes for most AP, although all proposals are currently in place in some part of the NPS and so have been tested out in practice.

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

AP will continue to make a vital contribution to the management of serious offenders in the period after their release from prison (and to a lesser degree prisoners released on temporary licence). They play an important role in the NPS, with staff who are skilled and trained to manage their residents in a positive and constructive way. They will work together with other AP in their division and across the NPS to ensure that AP places are available for those who need them most. The AP remit will be far more than simply providing accommodation; during their stay residents will undertake evidence-based individual and group activities designed to support their rehabilitation. Our ambition is that the referral process should be smooth, staff groups will be skilled and resilient, and that offenders should move on having benefited from their period of residence.

6.3 End state proposals 

Our proposals are: 

6.3.1 Enabling Environments Standard 

All AP will become accredited by the Royal Society of Psychiatrists as ‘enabling environments’. Approximately half of AP are already accredited or in the process of being so, and we expect the remainder will be accredited within three years. We anticipate that this should improve the quality of staff interaction with residents, enable them to manage more difficult residents, reduce the level of recalls, and have a positive impact on parole. Training for staff will be required over the next three years to achieve accreditation.

6.3.2 Standard electronic referral process 

We will roll out a standard electronic referral process, accessed through nDelius. This will be a more streamlined process, reducing duplication. In particular we envisage a significant reduction in demands on AP managers, some of whom report spending 30% of their time dealing with referrals, many of which are being considered by other AP at the same time. It will facilitate inter-divisional decisions and also resource-sharing. It will also mean an equitable distribution of the most challenging residents. Offenders will be placed where possible in their home divisions, but where placement across divisions is necessary this will become easier to arrange. The ICT requirement for this is likely to be met quickly. Staff in AP and LDUs will need some familiarisation training in the new process. We anticipate this will mean offenders receive a more equitable access to AP and that it will enable us to prioritise AP places for the most challenging cases, so supporting their rehabilitation. 

6.3.3 Divisional management of referrals 

In order to ensure the smooth running of the referral process, it will be managed by a central ‘referral hub’ in each division. These arrangements are already in place in some divisions.

6.3.4 Standard Operating Model 

AP come in different shapes and sizes, they operate within different neighbourhoods and vary in their resident mix. As a result they will continue to have their own individual character. Notwithstanding this, we believe they should have a common framework for their focus and activities and that they should all have a standard operating model.

The E3 AP work package has sought to define more clearly the purpose of the AP within the NPS through defining their functions and emphasising the essential elements of an enhanced regime. We have concluded that AP have three inter-related but distinct functions: public protection, rehabilitation and accommodation services. We will map the key AP processes associated with these tasks in EQUiP to ensure consistency. 

Each AP will deliver an enhanced regime. We define this as purposeful activities, linked to resettlement and based on an understanding of desistence research, which are underpinned by the key worker relationship. The activities will include life skills, education, employment and social skills. We believe that this will improve outcomes for residents and reduce the levels of recalls. 

A variety of arrangements are currently in place for procurement of aspects of enhanced regime; at present there are no proposals to change this. 

We will introduce the concept of ‘standard’ and ‘complex’ AP. We will calculate this using returns to NOMS, using the criteria of level of risk of residents and the number of beds in a premises. It should result in small number of ‘complex’ regimes which will require additional staffing levels. 

6.3.5 Standard Staffing Model 

There will be a standard model for staffing which will apply to all AP. Larger AP will have additional staffing to reflect their greater numbers of residents. The proposed model focuses on the staffing required for the range of tasks undertaken in AP, and is affordable within the current budget.

i Double cover at all times 

There will be a minimum of two waking staff on site at all times. There will be agreed minimum and maximum shift patterns. This will ensure security and appropriate oversight, as well as compliance with health and safety expectations. Recognising that this includes a contingency, we will look at how this capacity might most productively be utilised. 

ii AP Manager for each premises 

There will be a dedicated AP manager (expected to be band 5) for each AP, who will be responsible for the smooth running of the premises, the line management of staff, and risk management decisions. Some AP currently have band 4 deputy managers on site with an SPO manager shared between more than one AP, however we have concluded that a single manager for each premises is the best model. We anticipate that the improvements detailed above will free up management time currently spent on reviewing referrals to enable greater focus on managing the premises. We will need to be clear what cover arrangements are appropriate when managers are absent. 

iii Area Manager Role 

An Area Manager (indicative band 6), with devolved budgetary responsibility, will manage clusters of AP. Clusters will be determined by the number of ‘complex’ and ‘standard’ AP and geography. This arrangement is currently in operation in several divisions. It enables more detailed attention to AP than can be achieved where the direct management is included in the portfolio of the Divisional Head of Public protection.

iv Day and night staffing 

We wish to prioritise the vital role played by key workers (indicative band 3) in AP in face to face work with residents, liaison with colleagues and partners and in purposeful activities. This work is most effectively undertaken during the day time, and these staff will therefore work primarily during the day. We will explore shift patterns which may include weekend day time working. Work which focuses more on “accommodation” services will be undertaken by residential workers (indicative band 2) whose working hours will include overnight and weekends. The second member of staff present during night and weekend hours provides security and monitoring services. In the light of this role profile we intend to explore the pros and cons of contracting out this work through a national contract. Evidence from AP which currently use this staffing model is that with a well-managed contract and appropriately trained contractor staff there is no increase in incidents. There will always be a senior manager on the ‘out of hours’ rota to provide support where necessary and to authorise recalls. 

v Administrative support 

Each AP will have a 0.5 receptionist/administrator, and a 0.5 financial administrator to support the work of other staff. 

vi Standard payments to sessional staff 

We have inherited arrangements which mean that sessional AP staff are currently paid different rates. We propose to harmonise these arrangements so they are paid at a standard rate, with additional payments for those working in London. The standard staffing model should reduce our reliance on sessional staff so that there is better consistency of staffing in AP.

vii Out of hours enhancements 

AP staff receive additional payments to reflect out of hours working. Processes for payment vary across the NPS. We propose to negotiate a harmonised system for these payments, which is fair and reflects the working pattern. 

The E3 work package has also looked at areas including Health and Safety, Management Information and Quality Standards. We intend to use the outcomes of this work to make further improvements in the quality of AP services. 

Further work streams are working on the Strategic Direction of AP, including the physical AP estate, facilities management, independent AP and AP for women. They will review the capacity, resident profile, and layout of AP with the aim of matching NPS need to resource, equity across the country and compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). These work streams will make firm proposals following this large-scale review. We anticipate that this review will enable improved efficiency and effectiveness in the running of the AP estate.

6.4 Impact on service delivery 

The changes we propose are predicated on Offender Managers managing their offenders in AP and AP staff managing the AP and its service delivery. AP staff would be better trained, better able to manage challenging residents, and offer an improved level of rehabilitative interventions. We expect that this would result in a reduction in recalls of AP residents and more positive move ons. We anticipate that there will be greater equality of access to AP places across the NPS and that this will enable better prioritisation of places for those who most need them. We anticipate that the increased clarity about the function and operations of AP will have an impact on Parole Board decisions to release in more finely-balanced cases. 

As noted above, the E3 proposals are likely to mean changes for most AP. Where these involve significant staffing changes, these will need to be planned in order to minimise the impact on service delivery.

6.5 Impact on staff 

As noted above, the improvements to the referral process are expected to free up staff time. The process of accrediting AP as enabling environments will mean staff become more highly trained. Focussing on purposeful activities and on formal key work will enhance the role of key workers, who will have more consistent contact with the residents and will be able to undertake more planned work. This in turn will develop their skills meaning they are more easily able to move to other roles in the NPS for career development. 

Whilst there may be some concerns that concentrating the availability of key workers during daytime hours may reduce staff resilience to manage difficult situations at other times, this is not supported by evidence from the AP which already have this staffing model.

We will aim to harmonise arrangements for payments for out of hours working to be fair to staff alongside properly reflecting the work to be done and to ensure equity across the AP estate. 

6.6 Conclusion 

We believe that these proposals will lead to an efficient and effective AP estate across the NPS which has a single purpose and consistent structures in key areas such as staffing, referrals and interventions. We are confident this will mean that AP can continue to provide appropriate accommodation to those offenders who need it most, with beneficial effects on the reduction of serious harm and reoffending.

(more to follow)