So, How Is Privatised Probation Doing?

Regular readers will recall that TR would pick the best practice that was available and innovation would reign supreme. So, some three years into the privatised contracts and having been rewarded with extra government cash, how are things going? 

"This CRC’s work is so far below par that its owner and government need to work together urgently to improve matters, so that those under supervision and the general public receive the service they rightly expect, and the staff that remain can do the job they so wish to do." Dame Glenys Stacey, HMI 

"So here's the rub:Prisons violent crime-ridden filthy; privatised community punishment a shambles endangering public." Frances Crook, Howard League

"Overall, we note we are performing relatively well compared to other CRCs and are performing well against targets set by the Ministry of Justice." A BGSW CRC spokesman

This from the GloucestershireLive website:- 

Privatised arm of Gloucestershire Probation Service slated by inspector over 'drastic cuts' to balance the books

The privatised arm of the service charged with rehabilitating offenders has been rated as ‘poor’ by inspectors. Despite ‘heroic efforts’ by staff, the service was nowhere near the standard expected, said Dame Glenys Stacey, HM Chief Inspector of Probation. Today she published a report of a recent inspection of probation work in Gloucestershire. She blamed ‘drastic cuts’ aimed at balancing the books by the operator of Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire Community Rehabilitation Company, Working Links.

Overall, the work of the CRC in Gloucestershire was poor, she found. Working Links has not implemented its plans (as set out in its original contract bid) for continuity of support for people throughout their period of supervision. Instead she found cases being transferred between case managers too often, and staff carrying too many cases. Allocation decisions were based on a model which was not fully understood by staff, partly because it was complex, changing and not fully implemented.

She found that the CRC operating model is not working as it should, and the high caseloads of responsible officers are unreasonable. Managers and staff are working hard, but sickness absence levels are high, and the quality of work is poor overall – because staff are over-burdened and not given the professional support expected. Assessment and planning was mixed, and plans were not being followed through well enough and some offenders were not being seen often enough, the report found. As a result, the public are more at risk than necessary, and those people who may turn their lives around may be denied the chance to do so.

CRCs are responsible for low and medium risk offenders and took up the contracts across the country three years ago. The quality of work from the NPS with higher-risk offenders in Gloucestershire was reasonably good overall, however – this part of the service was not privatised. Inspectors made recommendations which included: the CRC reducing individual caseloads to manageable levels, ensuring managers are allocated responsibilities which are reasonable and achievable so that they can support frontline staff, and improving unpaid work arrangements.

Dame Glenys said: 

“The National Probation Service was performing reasonably well, and the public can be reassured that those people who pose a higher risk are generally being supervised to an acceptable standard in Gloucestershire, although more could be done to reduce the risk that individuals reoffend. The picture was much more troubling at the Community Rehabilitation Company, where there have been drastic staff cuts to try and balance the books. Those remaining are under mounting pressure and carrying unacceptable workloads that prevent them doing a good job. This CRC’s work is so far below par that its owner and government need to work together urgently to improve matters, so that those under supervision and the general public receive the service they rightly expect, and the staff that remain can do the job they so wish to do.”

A Bristol, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire Community Rehabilitation Company spokesman said in a statement: 

“We welcome the publication of this report, which has highlighted many pieces of good practice as we work hard to combat reoffending. We are particularly pleased with the inspectors’ praise of our education, training and employment activity, our dedicated women’s services, our hard-working people and their relationships with the National Probation Service. Overall, we note we are performing relatively well compared to other CRCs and are performing well against targets set by the Ministry of Justice. However, we recognise there are areas of our work which we need to improve on if we are to be successful in achieving our ambitious goals. We will be working even harder, alongside our colleagues in the National Probation Service, to address the issues identified and deliver the services which the public, courts and our service users require from us.”

--oo00oo--

From the HMI report:-

The Working Links target operating model 

The operating model differs from that envisaged at the time the contracts were awarded. The target model was based on ‘community based case managers, following the principle of consistent case management, employing a single case manager to support the end to end offender journey from allocation to the contractor to completion of sentence requirements’ 16. At the time of the inspection, however, we found cases being transferred between case managers due to staff leaving the CRC and the establishment of the Operational Hub. The CRC still aspires to consistent case management, with a single case manager supporting the service user throughout, unless this is not in the interests of good risk management. Once the operating model stabilises, the situation may improve, but meanwhile staff shortages and absences continue to compromise the ambition set out in the target model. 

At the heart of case allocation decisions is a tool known as the BRAG (blue, red, amber and green) model, which is used to categorise offenders by their assessed level of risk and needs and indicate the level of supervision, grade of staff responsible and mode of service delivery. Offenders are to be assessed and regularly reviewed to identify dynamic risk factors that may require changes to the supervision, such as increased contacts, targeted use of rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) days or attendance at the Community Hub.

Although the concept seems straightforward, it is more complex than it first appears. The BRAG assessment looks at four key elements: the risk of serious harm; the likelihood of reoffending (which will include the type and potential impact of such offending on victims); the likelihood of engagement or disengagement with the sentence; and, finally, complex factors and vulnerability. In order to be classified as green, the offender would need to show evidence of stability, the capacity to change and behaviour supportive of desistance. 

To be suitable for the Operational Hub, a case has to be assessed as low risk of serious harm. Some green, medium risk of serious harm, cases are managed in the front office through face-to-face contact, which may take place in the Community Hub. Similarly, some custody cases – such as those held by probation officers (POs) or managed under the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) scheme – remain with the front office, while others are managed in the Operational Hub. 

Most CRC staff did not fully understand the model, partly because it was complex, changing, and not fully implemented. We judged that they had not received enough training, and were particularly concerned that staff may not always have understood the distinction between low risk of harm and risk of serious harm when transferring cases to the Operational Hub. Moreover, at the time of the inspection, 13% of cases did not have a BRAG status at all. 

The proportion of cases in each category necessarily changes over time, and may differ from the initial assumptions underpinning resource distribution. So, for example, a smaller percentage of the caseload was held by the Operational Hub than was assumed by the target operating model. Plans to migrate all suitable cases to the Operational Hub by the end of April 2017 have not yet been fully implemented.