Wednesday 3 October 2018

MoJ Move the Goal Posts

Email sent on behalf of Dawn Blower:

All

Please see attached regarding the implementation of the Minimum Contact Specification from 1 October.


It is important that all staff read and implement the required changes in accordance with the steps outlined in the document.

Supporting documents are attached:

1. Practice Direction - Minimum Contact Levels with annexes providing guidance on scheduling appointments

2. An updated BRAG guidance. The latest version of frequently asked questions and some handy reference documents will follow.

Thanks

Helen Bigley
Executive Assistant and Volunteering & Mentoring Co-ordinator Wales CRC (Bridgend)


Minimum Contact Specification and Implementation

Following a contract variation from the Ministry of Justice, as from 1 October, all Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are required to ensure that there is a minimum monthly face-to-face contact between case managers (or a designated case manager named in the sentence plan) and service users in most CRC cases.

Following HMIP inspections, the Ministry of Justice are keen to ensure regular face-to-face contact between case managers and service users, to enable the strengthening of positive working relationships that support the path to desistance.

Whilst the requirement is for a minimum monthly face-to-face contact, the contact frequencies to match the BRAG status still apply. We are in the process of agreeing some variations to these with the contract management teams and will provide an update as soon as these are confirmed. We will also be updating the workload indicator to reflect the additional contact frequency.

Attached to this email you will find a Practice Direction that fully explains the requirements and associated documents. Below we explain the way in which we will implement the specification and the timetable:

1. Immediate Actions required in Red, Red/Amber, Amber and Green front office cases are as follows:

All case manager contacts must be recorded using one of the following three codes in nDelius:

COAP - Planned Office Visit (NS)
COAI - Initial Appointment (NS)
CHVS - Home Visit to Case (NS)

For the contact to be counted as a valid case manager contact, the following must happen and be recorded:

  • the service user is informed in writing, in advance of the appointment location, date and time and appointment slips must be upload to nDelius;
  • the appointment is not subsequently cancelled or rearranged by the case manager 
  • the case manager or designated case manager is available to see the service user at the time and date specified for at least a 30-minute period of time (i.e. you must allow for up to 30 minutes if required);
  • the time available to see the service user for engagement and risk management is distinct from time spent on the delivery of any other activity (for example, RAR intervention or Programme session).
  • In the event of non-attendance a further appointment must be offered within 5 business days.
2. All case management will move from the operational hubs to the front office

In order that we can deliver to the requirements of the minimum contact specification and in view of forthcoming changes to Offender Management in custody, we have decided that all case management should take place in the front office rather than through the operational hubs. This is no reflection on the work that is currently being undertaken in the operational hubs but is due to the requirement for us to enable more face-to-face time with service users. Indeed we want to ensure that good practice from the operational hub model is taken forward into the way in which we manage green and custody cases in the front office. There will be no change to the operational hub administrative functions.

This change will take place in five stages:

  • From 1 October, cases that will have their initial OASys and Initial Sentence Plan (ISP) undertaken in the front office, either as part of a community sentence or post-release, will remain with the case manager who has undertaken that assessment. These cases should be given a minimum monthly face-to-face appointment with the case manager following the completion of the ISP. This will avoid us commencing an in touch service with service users who we know will subsequently need to move to face-to-face, hence minimising disruption for them and managing expectations.
  • This will not apply to Orders that have a single requirement of unpaid work, curfew, exclusion, prohibited activity, residence or any combination of these. These will continue to be allocated to a case manager in the operational hub until further notice. We will amend the case allocation process to reflect this. 
  • From 1 October, performance reports will be run against this metric so accurate recording is critical. The specification requires us to achieve the metric in 95% of applicable cases with 85% triggering the improvement process. There is a ramp up period until end December 2018.
  • From 1 October, discussions will take place with staff, following HR processes, to explore how we can make sure that we have case managers in the offices to undertake the face-to-face work with the service users in scope for the specification and who have previously been having telephone contact. These service users will be reporting to their local offices or community hubs and we will therefore need some case managers who have been located in operational hubs to move to other locations. We will also be looking at how best to use the skills and expertise of the team managers currently located in the operational hubs. The service delivery managers are working closely with LDU heads in order that we can avoid as much change as possible for both staff and service users. 
  • From 1 November and on an office by office basis, all other cases will be allocated to the front office. The roll-out timetable will depend upon how quickly we are able to reorganise our case manager resource to cover the cases currently held in the operational hub back in the locations closest to their home addresses.
  • The single requirement cases that are out of scope for the specification, such as unpaid work, can continue to be managed through telephone contact where appropriate to manage the risks. We are exploring the potential to have dedicated case managers within the front office to work with this cohort and therefore closely with Community Payback staff delivering the requirement. This will form part of the discussions with the operational hub case managers during October, as will any training needs for the specification in general.
There is an Implementation Group overseeing this project, with myself as the senior responsible officer and Terry Reddington, change manager for the operational hubs, working closely with his colleague service delivery managers and LDU heads. Liz Humphreys is the project co-ordinator. Please direct any queries to your line manager in the first instance.

We recognise that this requires a change to our operating model and we are committed to managing that change carefully and through discussion with staff. Our aim is to ensure that the greater frequency of contact with service users increases the likelihood of successful completions and outcomes.


Liz Watkins
September 2018

19 comments:

  1. Oh dear. The govt knows it has made a complete mess. Instead of acknowledging this and putting it right, it wants the award winning practice back without the award winning structure. It's not going to happen. Chaos heaped upon chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In the event of non-attendance a further appointment must be offered within 5 business days."

    Is it that the offer must be made within 5 business days? Or the further appointment must be on a date within 5 business days?


    Presumably this is the result of Gauke's 27 July speech & PR stunt following the mauling TR got from a range of reports:

    "Government is strengthening offender supervision in existing CRC contracts and investing an extra £22 million each year to improve through-the-gate support"

    "... we are taking decisive action now to improve the delivery of probation services in England and Wales."

    Next comes: "CRC and NPS areas to be aligned - improving joint working and strengthening ties with key partners, including the third sector, local authorities and PCCs."

    Followed by: "Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts will end two years early in 2020, with plans to work with the market to design new and improved contracts."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "contracts will end two years early in 2020, with plans to work with the market to design new and improved contracts"

      TO WORK WITH THE MARKET

      That won't be napo then.

      Delete
    2. market will be so disfunctional. its never going to work unless taking money for crap service is the goal

      Delete
    3. "In the future, CRC and NPS areas will be aligned, with ten new probation regions in England"

      So they've already divvied up the areas...

      Delete
    4. Six NPS areas + Wales becomes 10+Wales

      Gauke: "Unforeseen changes in the types of offenders coming to the courts and the sentences they receive have substantially reduced CRC income and affected the quality of frontline services."

      Twaddle, lies & total buffoonery.

      We pay these people out of our taxes, we elect them into parliament, they lie through their teeth & we accept it.

      Delete
    5. "Under the new proposals ten new probation regions will be created in England. Each will contain one CRC and one NPS area and be overseen by one HMPPS leader."

      Delete
    6. All available to read here:

      https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plans-for-probation-in-wales-announced-by-uk-government

      Delete
  3. its a million miles from initial contract budget. more cases, less staff, no phone reporting (which crcs were banking on), more admin task.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Once upon a time I was a PO. After trying my hand at several varieties of job I discovered it was the only thing I was good at. During just shy of 25 years' on the tools I saw people from all walks of life in various states of emotion, crisis, recovery, success, failure, etc. I often met their families and/or friends - parents, siblings, children, partners. On rare occasions I helped them well beyond what was expected (or probably 'allowed') because there was no avenue left to pursue resources. On one occasion, after a lengthy series of discussions with a prison number one governor, I personally funded transport & she personally funded hotel accommodation so a parent could visit their only child in the last hours of life.

    Like many others I was cast aside when Grayling's guts overwhelmed common-sense & a century of vocational excellence.

    Today I read this blog. I still don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    It is a disgrace. A constitutional, humanitarian disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel your pain I have just 2 years to go but don’t think I can stand it anymore From what I’m hearing about the future dictatorship from NPS I despair enough is enough for me

      Delete
  5. The Guardian might have made some faux pas in recent times, but this is an entertaining piece by Marina Hyde:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/03/theresa-may-tory-conference-boris-johnson-marina-hyde?CMP=share_btn_tw

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't really understand how these changes may impact on the daily workings of probation staff, and whilst I think building a relationship between PO and client, I'm a bit puzzled as to what these changes are ment to achieve.
    Firstly, face to face contact is more human then a phone call, but if the PO is not in a position to offer any help or assistance face to face, then it might aswell be a half hour phone call, or even dare I say it a half hour at a kiosk.
    Secondly, if central government are to dictate the operational model that CRCs have to work to, then there really is no point in outsourcing services. It's paying a company to run a service the way you demand its run, so its going to cost more then keeping it in house?
    I really don't get it, and who will bid for contracts next if they haven't got the opertuity to arrange things to elicit maximum profit?

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Concise, clear, simple. Getafix hits the nail squarely once again.

      My view is, as stated before, these are franchises as opposed to privatisations. They are get-rich-quick schemes for Tory chums, not cost-saving or innovation exercises for the benefit of the public purse.

      The CRCs have been disastrous in every respect but, for example, disability assessment schemes have netted one private company £26m profits in 12 months (I'll try to find the link).

      Delete
    2. https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2018/10/03/a-dwp-contractor-just-made-26m-profit-by-exploiting-disabled-people/

      Delete
    3. Maximus Leadership

      Dr Paul Williams
      Division President, MAXIMUS UK

      Michael Batty
      UK Finance Director

      Beth Carruthers
      Managing Director, MAXIMUS UK Human Services

      John Devlin
      UK IT Director

      James Farren
      Programme Director, CHDA

      Keith Luxon
      UK Human Resources Director

      Gareth Parry
      Chief Executive Officer, Remploy

      Robert Spread
      Programme Director, MAXIMUS People Services

      DWP Contract now extended to 2020.

      Delete
    4. Esther McVey said at conference this week that the tories are spending more then ever before on disability.
      She neglected to say it wasn't going to claimants but to her pals in the private sector.

      Delete
  7. If crcs are to work more closely with nps why are crcs continuing to develop their own it systems, which is just going to create chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  8. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/741324/Guidanceonpart2ofthesexualoffencesact2003.pdf

    This has been a long time coming - why now? And why silently?

    ReplyDelete