Whole Systems Approach?

I find offender management in custody to be such an odd concept if the purpose improving outcomes for release. Although billed as a "whole systems approach to resettlement", there is nothing "whole systems" about the way this endeavour was named i.e. management in custody. For me, they lost the probation "buy in" right from the start by choosing both the phrases "offender management" and "in custody".

There always was an "offender manager" or "offender supervisor" in custody so I'm just not sure what is supposed to be new about what goes on in custody - OMIC has removed, not added - taken AWAY the role of the community officer, or at least someone "out" of the prison to co-ordinate the sentence.

My experience of prisons over the years is they only see what is going on within their four walls - rightfully so. But it often took the oversight of someone external i..e myself, the community practitioner to look to other prisons and point out what the person needed existing in another prison elsewhere. While of course a consistent keyworker prison officer (rather than the old "personal officer" system, which changed depending on what wing the person was on) is a good thing...but I don't feel the service have ever told us what the benefits of taking away the community involvement/oversight is supposed to be? Maybe it is, maybe we're really not needed until the last few weeks before release - maybe this elusive research mentioned via Twister informs us that this relationship makes no difference to the person's community outcomes.

Of course, we all know that prisoners move prisons due to security concerns, overcrowding, or indeed to access interventions they need, or to be closer to family. The original offender management model was brought in precisely because prisoners were constantly moving from prison, to prison and each prison "started afresh" as if the past hadn't occurred.

OK so there's a handover? What experience have people already had of these supposed pre-release handovers and the inter-prison-transfer handovers that take place along the way?. Do these adequately enable the community PO to grasp a person's history and develop the relationship just at the moment you're about to tell them "oh, here's your licence conditions, and by the way, you're going to AP". Will the prison OM's be prepping the person for the release, these conditions and what to expect from day one, to adequately prepare them?

And what exactly is whole system about moving people to another resettlement prison shortly before their release, so that the "handover POM" doesn't actually know the person and therefore has nothing to handover? What is whole system about outsourcing "resettlement work" to private companies to do absolutely nothing about resettlement prior to release? And what is whole system about taking away the role of the prison OM in those crucial weeks prior to release?

Oh and has there been any communication that as part of the new national standards the community OM is expected see the person three times in that final resettlement phase? Has time been allocated for these increased prison visits, have videolink slots suddenly been massively increased for this evident increased demand or are people still finding it notoriously difficult to see people in custody?

I cant believe that I've heard about OMIC for years now, and still I feel I know very little about what it is, why it's happening and how this is going to affect myself let alone the people directly affected?

*****
Hang on I just don't get it - if OMIC is going live in open prisons, at what point does the community OM get allocated? Surely one of the main purposes of open prison is for the person to come out on ROTL - as was as the notoriously laborious ROTL approval process, who does that if the person isn't within the last few months of the sentence - who visits the family, builds those relationships, and sees the person while on ROTL, if there is no community OM to see? And if there is a community OM doing all these things then that's not OMIC is it, it's the status flipping quo!

******

This from the archives:-

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Latest From Napo 193

For quite some time readers have been suggesting that Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) was another disaster in the making and this latest news from Napo would tend to confirm that view:-

Napo and POA in dispute over OMiC as Johnson announces 10,000 more prison places

Today’s big story on sentencing reform, and the return of the Tories favourite old pre-election mantra of ‘lock em up and throw away the key,’ is symptomatic of the failure by successive Governments to properly understand the need for a balanced approach to prisons and rehabilitation.

I have just returned to HQ from the interview with Sky News earlier today where I tried to introduce a different perspective, and highlight a number of Napo’s campaigning priorities. Depressingly today’s debate has been dominated by the headline of 10,000 new prison places (and at least one new prison) to be financed by another huge windfall from that Magic Money Tree.

Same old, same old

There are a few reasons why the policy shift should be subject to major scrutiny. Firstly, because it represents a brutal ‘pitchforking’ of the reformist shoots previously planted by Messrs Gauke and Stewart on the need to abolish short term prison sentences which would have made a decent start in freeing up space across the HMP estate. Although by now we should know better than to expect a few facts to get in the way of the populist soundbites resurrected by Boris and his chums as they move inexorably towards a November general election.

Secondly, and in fairness to Secretary of State Robert Buckland, who at least acknowledged the need to take a holistic view of penal and rehabilitative policy on the early bulletins, it's yet again been all about Prison being the place where society’s ‘problems’ can be sent and sorted. Anyone with even half an idea about the justice system can tell you that this is a patently absurd mind-set, both from a financial and political standpoint. It's been tried tested and failed more times than many of us can remember and has seen the Prison population rise to bursting point across several decades.

OMiC dispute

Today, and perhaps very well-timed, your National Chair Katie Lomas and I have served notice on Sonia Crozier that Napo are now in dispute over the Offender Management in Custody strategy for a number of reasons as articulated in our letter. Our serious doubts about the practicalities of OMiC were raised a long time ago and have been again in light of the Governments U-turn on Probation, but it’s been an awfully long slog trying to get someone to take our concerns seriously. Today’s announcements should at least ring some more bells in this regard.

Fortunately it's not just us who are somewhat miffed at developments, and last week we met with our colleagues from the POA who also have serious issues in common cause around grading, qualification and workloads. We agreed to exchange notes going forward, maintain contact and seek joint meetings with senior HMPPS leaders and Ministers.

We will also be raising this subject as a matter of urgency at this weeks’ meeting of the NPS JNC and we will report further to members as soon as we can.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary

--oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier, Chief Probation Officer and Executive Director Women
HM Prison and Probation Service

12th August 2019

Dear Sonia,

Dispute re OMiC

During recent engagement with your Officials about OMiC, we have received information that causes such significant concern to our members that we have no option but to formally register a dispute. Our concerns are summarised here.

Lack of Consultation

At the last meeting on July 24th we were presented with (after around a year of asking) a Powerpoint presentation titled “OMiC Staffing Model”. The document was dated March 2019. This document includes changes to agreed workload timings and changes to work practices such as completion dates for OASys and the OASys review frequency that we have not been properly consulted about. These constitute a significant change for members as well as establishing a lower level of assessment and review than is currently in place for clients in custody.

Broken assurances on staffing levels

At the start of OMiC, we were assured that the Offender Management part of the project would not be rolled out until staffing levels are safe. It is now clear that this is not the case and many members are reporting that their division is pressing ahead despite the significant vacancy levels and unacceptably high workloads that exist.

We have been informed that, in five prisons, there are serious staffing issues that are not likely to be resolved by the “go live” date. Our understanding was that in such a situation the “go live” would not proceed, but instead we have been informed that the Case Management Support model will be used instead. This will force Probation staff to take on dangerously high caseloads of high risk clients and will see prison staff who have not had the requisite training or acquired the qualification to carry out offender management tasks with those clients. Taking aside the reality that the Case Management Support model rarely affords the workload relief it promises in the custody part of the sentence, there is little work that can be usefully given to someone else in this way. Our members who are being forced to work in this way are at real risk from such excessive workloads and we know from tragic experience that working so far beyond capacity also prevents members from delivering the standard of work required from them.

SPO workloads

We have raised our concerns for some time about the prison SPO role after it was announced that the ratio of SPO: reportee would be 1:14 FTE rather than the 1:10 FTE in the community. The SPOs working in prisons will be supervising both probation and prison staff who are on different sets of terms and conditions. We already see SPOs in the community struggling with workloads, especially where there are a number of part time staff (far more likely in a predominantly female workforce) which often means there are far more than 10 staff to supervise. In Prisons, these difficulties will be exacerbated, as the SPO is expected to drive the rehabilitation culture in the OMU while referencing multiple management and support structures for the two sets of staff. Our representations on this issue up to now have been ignored.

Change to agreement on the contracted out estate

During the meeting on the 24th July, we were also informed that, contrary to the previous assurance that high-risk clients in the contracted-out estate would have an OM with a Probation Qualification, there was a plan to use the Case Management Support model here too. This again forces members to work with dangerously high caseloads and way beyond their safe capacity thus risking their health and safety as well as making it impossible for them to deliver the standard of work expected.

Concerns about the model

You are of course aware that right from the start, Napo have questioned the OMiC model because it builds in working practices that are not supportive of desistance including inconsistency of worker through the sentence. The change of Offender Manager during the preparation for a client’s release is particularly concerning; as the period immediately prior to and just after release are especially vulnerable points in the sentence. The blueprint for the change to Probation Services discusses how problematic these “handoffs” are, and this forms part of the basis for one of the most significant U-turns in policy we have seen in Probation. It is therefore astounding that the OMiC model is being forced through with the same flaws embedded.

The announcements by the Prime Minister over the weekend of the intention to create 10,000 new Prison places, in itself means that urgent dialogue (and surely a further review) is now necessary on the whole OMiC strategy and the resourcing requirements that are going to be needed in Prisons and Probation.

In addition, the OMiC model has been altered for the Women’s Estate to remove the Keyworker role for those women described in the documentation as “high complexity women”. We have made representations about the degrading language being used and suggested that “women with complex needs” would be more appropriate. We question the decision to remove the Keyworker role which has been described as providing more consistency. Using consistency of worker as a reasoning for any decision in this model is bizarre, given the representations we have made about the model overall, but in this case it doesn’t fit at all. The Keyworker role is one of the positive aspects of OMiC, providing an additional supportive member of the “team” in the prison. This should be used to enhance, not supplant the interaction with the Offender Manager. Instead of removing the Keyworker role we believe that the Keyworker should remain, but the Offender Manager should be allocated additional time to ensure that positive working relationships can be built.

No consultation on job losses

In addition to the practice concerns we have illustrated above, it is very clear that the OMiC model is simply seeking to resolve the acute and chronic staffing issues in the NPS by giving staff unacceptably high workloads and by giving 30% of the custody caseload to Prison staff to manage. Although no NPS staff will lose their employment (because of the high vacancy rate in the NPS and our ‘no redundancy’ agreement) this nevertheless represents a net loss of jobs which has also not been the subject of prior consultation with the unions.

In view of the urgency of this issue, we are seeking its inclusion as an additional item at this weeks’ meeting of the NPS JNC. Meanwhile, Napo will be taking steps to consult with our sister trade unions and our members about how we should progress this dispute.

Yours sincerely

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary
KATIE LOMAS National Chair

---oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier reply letter 05.09.19

1st October 2019 

Dear Sonia, 

DISPUTE - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT IN CUSTODY (OMIC) 

Thank you for your reply of 5th September to our letter giving notice of dispute dated 12th August, which was the subject of a meeting at our Offices on 27th August. 

Whilst we welcomed the constructive discussion that took place between us, we nevertheless feel that certain aspects of your written response require some comment. 

Staffing Levels 

Having reflected carefully on the narrative that you have provided, Napo does not agree that the expected ratio for Prison based Probation Officers of ‘no more than 80 cases’ represents a safe workload. Here you reference the additional Case Management support that will be provided by Prison staff, but the genesis of this dispute is that Napo does not believe that prison staff (while no doubt being in possession of skillsets applicable to their core functions ) have the requisite experience in offender management and that the anticipated caseloads for Probation Officers within the custodial environment remain unsafe. We have consistently challenged the idea that the case management support model provides significant workload relief for the PO or PSO holding a case and this means that we have little confidence that such an arrangement would make managing such a high caseload safe. 

Additionally, Napo has some difficulty accepting that the three bespoke Community Hubs will be an effective work around in covering vacancies. Here we foresee large volumes of cases being managed remotely by practitioners where the likelihood of engaging directly with clients in the way that you have suggested is highly unlikely to occur. 

Unfortunately your letter is silent on the key issue of staffing in the community and we continue to pick up concerns from members that despite high vacancy rates in some areas staff are still being expected to move into the custody roles with no immediate plan to backfill them. Indeed you have admitted yourself that it is unlikely that Probation staffing levels will stabilise for at least another year leaving divisions struggling to manage such a significant organisational change. 

All of this leads us to say that we do not believe that all of this is in keeping with assurances we have been given on safe staffing levels. On that basis we seek a further and urgent review of the calculations which have given rise to the caseload forecast. 

SPO Workloads 

We generally welcome the narrative that you have provided in respect of our concerns and we look forward to engaging with your OMiC Team to explore how best we can construct the SPO Survey that you have agreed to launch. 

‘For Profit’ Prisons 

Napo has long held the view that OM supervision in these establishments is well below the standards that we would expect. Napo does not believe that the CMS model will offer suitable workload relief for Probation Officers to oversee High Risk cases for the reasons outlined above. This plan also goes against the original assurance given in response to our representations about “For Profit” prisons. 

Continuity of Offender Manager 

The Offender Management in Custody model builds in an inconsistency in client – worker relationship that we seek to avoid in other circumstances. In fact part of the rationale for the integration of offender management out of CRCs and into the NPS is to create fewer changes of worker in the system. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the OMiC model is cheaper than properly resourcing end to end offender management. While most will welcome the increases to prison staff resources and the renewed focus on rehabilitation in custody the reality is that the proposed model requires fewer reviews of the sentence plan during the custodial phase of the sentence (moving from annual to biennial or triennial dependent on the length of sentence) and only mandates monthly contact between offender manager and client for high risk cases and only quarterly contact with the client in low risk cases. While this may appear to be more than the current model for offender manager contact it is less contact than most clients experience from the combined team of offender manager based in the community and the offender supervisor based in custody. Closer examination of the model reveals that decisions have been made in terms of resourcing that assume shorter times to complete various tasks including OASys assessments which will lead to higher caseloads for staff undertaking the Offender Manager role. While the mandatory contact and review of sentence plan demand may be lower than before this will place intense pressure on staff working in custody. 

Women in Custody 

We welcome the commitment to change the descriptive language as described in the OMIC model and will work closely with your team on the issues that we have raised. 

Reassurance about no redundancies 

Whilst we acknowledge the pledge for there to be no redundancies under the OMIC transition, we feel that you have failed to acknowledge the fact that NPS vacancies are being filled by prison staff whom we feel are under qualified for the role that they are going to be asked to undertake. 

Again, and linked to our concerns above, Napo believe that we need a joint review to identify the exact staffing need under the proposed OMIC Operational model in order to give staff confidence that it is fit for purpose. 

We look forward to another opportunity to try and resolve these issues and hope that we can arrive at position which provides confidence to our members that their concerns are being taken seriously by the employer. 

Yours sincerely 

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary

KATIE LOMAS National Chair

--oo00oo--

There is reference to the matter dated 26/06/2020:-

OMiC update

Our regular meetings with members of the OMiC Board have resumed now that we are working towards recovery and some of the staff who were seconded out of the OMiC project will be returning to it. A final draft of the OMiC recovery EDM will be shared shortly for our final opportunity to consult on it but this week’s meeting was a useful opportunity to raise some of the issues that have really been highlighted by the Covid-19 crisis.

SPO line management arrangements

While the move to formal line management of prison SPOs by the Governor has not yet happened informal management arrangements most certainly are in place and there have been examples of tensions between the NPS approach to exceptional delivery and the prison service approach placing prison SPOs in an almost impossible situation. We have supported manager members to address these issues and in some cases escalated them to ensure that SPOs have the right level of support from their division in implementing the EDM and the NPS guidance on social distancing, hygiene and PPE that underpins the protection of health and safety during the crisis. We have insisted that these issues be taken into consideration as we resume discussions about the line management of the prison SPOs. For now issues should be raised locally via the divisional implementation board and if necessary referred to Katie Lomas.

The approach to recovery

Once the EDM is published each prison will develop a regime recovery management plan (RRMP) and local reps, both Napo and POA must be involved in consultation on this along with the associated Health and Safety risk assessments for the OMU and related activities. As reported earlier in the week Napo and the POA have agreed to work collaboratively on this and where there is no Napo H&S rep in the prison local branch reps will be able to liaise with the POA H&S rep and members working in the establishment.

--oo00oo--

And the last reference appears to be here:-

Napo bulletin 7 August 2020

Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) and Prison Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs)

The OMiC implementation consultation has re-started following a pause due to the deployment of some project staff to frontline roles. The main focus of initial discussions has been the return to workplaces and the changes to EDMs for the prison OMUs. Napo health and safety reps in the local branch should be consulted on the OMU EDM and risk assessment as well as the EDM and risk assessment for any related functions that will involve Probation staff. Any members working in prisons should make sure EDMs and risk assessments have involved consultation with them and local health and safety reps and ask for a review if they haven’t.

The overarching advice remains the same for NPS staff working in prisons as for other workplaces, if you are able to work at home you should do so. There were examples as we moved into lockdown of some resistance to this in some prisons, if any members are experiencing difficulties in following this advice they should liaise with local reps to raise this first with the Head of Stakeholder Engagement and refer to Katie Lomas for escalation if this is not successful.

At the same time as discussing the return to workplaces we have also continued to raise issues about the OMiC model, workloads, lack of admin support and issues with the prison SPO role. We will be getting a full report back on the issues raised at our next meeting with the OMiC team.