Probation in Wales

An interesting article published yesterday by Walesonline. Regarding the first guy interviewed - no mention of a PSR? Sentenced without one perhaps? Note the absence of any reference to 'POPs' - a sure sign Wales wants to go its own way methinks.

'Most people would run away from them - we try to run towards them': The probation officers working with Wales' offenders

They try to help people who break the law change their lives, while protecting the public from harm, and are always thinking about risk.

A convicted offender is having his first meeting with a probation officer in Swansea after being sentenced for stealing a substantial sum of money from his employer. He was given an eight-month sentence suspended for two years, meaning he will stay out of prison as long he complies with the Probation Service. He must also carry out 130 hours of unpaid work as part of a two-year community order.

The man is in his late 20s and it is his first offence. He sits down opposite probation officer Laura Gray for an induction meeting - and so begins another case for the Swansea Neath Port Talbot probation delivery unit, one of six such units in Wales. Housed over three floors of a dark-bricked office building on Orchard Street, the Probation Service works with prisoners - both those locked up and recently released - and those handed community orders for lesser offences. There are probation officers based at Swansea Prison and also in the city's courts.

As of November 2021, the Swansea Neath Port Talbot unit's total caseload was 1,900 - 977 people on community sentences, 525 individuals being supervised post-release from prison, and 398 still in custody. The service sets out to protect the public from harm and also help rehabilitate those who pass through its doors. Assessing and updating risk is a vital component. "You've got to come with an open mind and not be judgemental," says Laura. "You're working with them because you're trying to prevent future victims. With support, most people have got the ability to change their lives and be functioning members of the public."

Back in the meeting room, Laura explains to the first-time offender that a colleague of hers will be assigned to him, so she fills out some but not all of a lengthy pack which will form the basis of a sentencing plan. She takes contact details, where he is living and with whom, whether he works and if so doing what, and what both parties can expect from one another over the course of the next two years. She also asks him if he understood the sentence and how it came about. There is a pause. The man provides the information. It turns out the crime was committed in London a number of years ago.

She tells him that a home visit will take place in the next couple of weeks, and stresses that keeping in touch and turning up to appointments on time are key. "The whole point of being on probation is to support you so that you don't end up in this situation again," she tells him. The unpaid work will be arranged in due course and might involve litter picking, cutting grass or painting. It emerges that the man's wife lives overseas and that the plan was for him to join her. That won't be happening now for two years.

A few minutes later we are in another meeting room where Laura is talking to one of the 34 mostly medium and high risk offenders she has on her caseload. He lives with his partner, their daughter and a new-born son. There have been some noise complaints from a neighbour, which are being looked into. Laura asks the man, who has assault convictions, about his drinking - he previously had to wear a sweat-sampling alcohol tag around his ankle for 72 days - and is encouraged by his response. "Seeing people drunk around Swansea, I think, 'That could be me.' I just want to be with my family," he says.

Laura says he has engaged well with social and housing services, and that his risk category has dropped from high to medium. She is constantly asking questions, assessing risk and, it seems to me, looking for solutions. She tells me later: "I know so much about him, he has talked to me about things that have happened in the past, I have been to his house, I have met his partner. You become so involved with these people. You've got to be constantly curious." She says "professional curiosity" is integral to the role.

The probation service runs programmes and works with organisations to deliver others. They cover substance misuse, employment and housing support, mental health services and domestic violence awareness, among others. Running the service in Wales costs just under £80 million per year. There is additional probation officer training for managing sexual offenders, which is managed in partnership with police.

Laura, 32, qualified as a probation officer seven years ago. It was while studying sociology and criminology in Manchester that she first came into contact with the probation service - in what was then called Strangeways Prison. "I thought it was really interesting," she says. Returning to Swansea after graduating, she volunteered at Swansea Prison and later completed a 15-month professional qualification in probation.

Asked if there was one thing that really offenders really benefited from in their lives to make progress, she replies: "It's hard to say one thing. Having employment gives someone that sense of purpose, and a structure to the day. Support networks are such a huge thing. Then accommodation is another factor - it makes everything more settled for them."

Laura says cases where offenders have turned their lives around were very rewarding. She gives an example of a man who had been in and out of prison since he was 17 and had now hit 50. Prison, she says, had become much harder for him. She says he has dealt with his drug problems, that he has a flat, and has re-established contact with his adult children. "He came out (of prison) with a different mindset," she says. "He really worked with us. We are helping somebody to help themselves. That's when the satisfaction comes."

Equally, there was disappointment in other cases, particularly when someone's actions or behaviour warranted being remanded to custody. "It's difficult not to feel we have not let them down in some way," says Laura. "We do try to work with people, but it's ultimately down to them to decide if they do it."

Kristian Hooper, 36, qualified as a probation officer in 2020 after stints as a play worker, youth worker and drugs charity worker. "I always had an interest in criminology and psychology, and had a higher education certificate in counselling," he says. A good probation officer, in his view, had to be able to build a good rapport with someone and have an understanding of complex needs. His 26-odd cases are mainly high and very high risk. "It is a difficult job," says Kristian. "You do read about what people have done, which can be pretty horrific, but you need to be able to compartmentalise that. Most people would run away from them - we try to run towards them."

He says 60-70% of his time was spent on reports, the remainder on meetings with offenders. Trying to prioritise his work when "multiple things" were happening with "multiple cases" could be challenging. "It is relentless," says university graduate Kristian. But it suits him. "I don't think I would ever have a normal job," he says.

The Swansea Neath Port Talbot probation delivery unit was scrutinised by HM Inspectorate of Probation in autumn 2021, when Covid and the discovery of asbestos in the office building severely hampered operations. "The impact of both these events cannot be underestimated," said a foreword to the report by chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell. To have "kept the show on the road", he added, was to the credit of senior managers. But the report said the quality of work undertaken with people in probation was weak, and that there were shortfalls across all elements of case supervision. The unit was rated "inadequate".

Strengths were cited though, such as relationships with partner agencies, the positive impact of certain specialist teams, and senior management's high profile and commitment to improve. Inspectors made six improvement recommendations, and an action plan with target dates for completion was drawn up in response. Staff and managers at the unit say the disruption during Covid of face-to-face meetings with people in probation was immense.

"We were operating in a different way, which is inherently challenging," says head of the unit, Deanne Martin. "The impact of not being able to see people and rely on technology instead - it worked for some people, but not for others. Risk assessment is a really intuitive process. You need all your senses." Deanne has worked for 20 years in probation. Her role includes liaising with police, prisons, and councils, attending safeguarding meetings, and understanding the needs of staff and what pressure they might be under. A recall to custody - something not taken lightly, she says - or returning someone to court, would require her attention.

The unit has 139 staff, around three-quarters of whom are probation practitioners and senior probation staff. "Our colleagues come from all different walks of life, and for some people it's a second career," says Deanne. "It's still a vocation for a lot of people - they're really committed to it. "The most important this for us is protecting the public. Having a real emphasis on risk and understanding risk is really important. We have a dual focus on rehabilitation. That takes a lot of skill, time and effort. You've have got to be optimistic, but not unrealistic."

Deanne says she has seen people "come out the other side" that she didn't expect to. "That's wonderful," she says. "I see the worst and I see the best, and often I see the best." She adds: "I do think probation staff do an incredible job. It's a field which is really quite skilled. It's not always visible, but they really are true public servants."

Trainee probation officers joining this coming September will earn £23,637. Once qualified, the salary increases to £35,130 plus allowances.

There were 240,674 offenders supervised by the probation service in England and Wales at the end of last September, 2% more than a year previously. All these offenders have different needs. At a team meeting early in the day at the Swansea Neath Port Talbot office, a member of staff says one man she supervises rang her 10 times before 9am.

Laura is taking the meeting and goes through a list of questions, with input from a senior probation officer. Numerous acronyms are bandied about. A more recognisable word, "pancakes", also crops up a couple of times. I'm reminded later that it is Shrove Tuesday - considered in Christianity as a day for confessing and being absolved of sins.

Richard Youle

Local Democracy Reporter

Richard is covering Swansea and Carmarthenshire as part of the BBC's Local Democracy Reporter project, which is aimed at enhancing reporting from local authorities across the UK. He previously worked as a senior reporter covering Swansea.

--oo00oo--

It is of course official Napo policy to campaign for the probation service in Wales to free itself from the stranglehold of the MoJ and HMPPS. This was recently published:-

NAPO CYMRU PRESSING THE CAMPAIGN FOR DEVOLUTION

Here at Napo News we are always pleased to receive information about particular campaign initiatives that are being undertaken by our Branch activists. This just in from Napo Cymru.

Greetings from Wales! Siwmae! Napo Cymru branch reporting in.

In 2022 Napo Cymru won the support of NAPO to campaign for the devolution of Probation in Wales, and with it the uncoupling of Probation from the prison system.

Before this, Mark Drakeford, First Minister for Wales, argued for this in his Bill McWilliams lecture. Gordon Brown in his recent report on democracy and devolution, cited Probation and Youth Justice as functions that should be devolved Report of the Commission on the UK’s Future. A torrent of painful media reports is revealing the utter failure of the Probation Service under its current management.

Napo Cymru have been busy on the campaign, as mandated by you.

• We are collaborating with the Wales Centre for Crime and Social Justice preparing a raft of evidenced based proposals for an alternative view of a future Probation Service in Wales.

• We are linked up with other Justice Unions and have recently gained commitment from Welsh government for regular Welsh Justice Unions meetings and communications.

• Napo Cymru has promoted a motion put to the Welsh Labour Conference in March: “Conference mandates the Welsh Labour Government to, as a matter of urgency, work with the UK Labour Party to progress the devolution of probation to Wales, along with other elements of the justice system including youth justice, removing it from the current unhealthy grip of the Westminster civil service and the prison service.”

• Napo Cymru Vice Chair Su McConnel is a contributor to the Fabian Society’s publication “Solidarity, Equality and Opportunity: creating strong social justice systems for women” which was launched in Westminster in January. She argues for the devolution of Probation to Wales, and also for the return of full Pre-Sentence Reports.

Our work locally

We are of course, getting on with the day job of being a stalwart Napo branch. We have an increasing number of members and to all of you, Croeso! We have many members needing support and representation, and we welcome each of you. We welcome everyone that joins Napo in the spirit of solidarity with our belief that Probation can be better for our communities, our clients, and our workers. We believe in change.

To let Napo HQ know about any meetings that members may be having with their local members of Parliament or any aspect of campaigning in the locality, please contact: Tania Bassett or Tay Burke.

Fairs Fair?

By email:-

Long time reader of the blog, first time contribution though. I think the attached scheme has the potential to be so divisive it has many of my colleagues discussing open rebellion. Please see attached details of the First Deployment Scheme that was sent to PQIPs in cohorts 6 and 7 who are due to graduate in May. It appears to be a pay rise by stealth for new graduates, not available to existing staff.

I am a PQiP at Xxxxxxxxxx and have been informed that I am not able to apply for Xxxxxxxxxxxx on the scheme, and I won't be eligible for the scheme at Xxxxxxxxx because I am already a part of the LDU, leaving one Xxxxxxxxxx option. Should I be prevented from leaving, as is likely for operational reasons, I will essentially be discriminated against financially on geographic grounds. Not to mention the resentment caused for my poor long suffering colleagues who would have to work alongside a new intake of much better paid recruits.

--oo00oo--

PQIP learners
January 2021

Dear Learners 

First Deployment Scheme 

As part of the work that we have been doing looking at staffing levels nationwide, a First Deployment Scheme has been developed to assist with staffing in the following regions: 

NPS Eastern 

NPS London 

NPS Kent, Surrey, Sussex 

NPS South Central 

The posts will be substantive Band 4 Probation Officer roles, and your NQO caseload protections will remain. 

As a part of this first deployment to one of the above LDU’s, we will offer you: 

• Financial support with accommodation 
• Premia payments after completion of 12 and 24 months 
• Contributions towards monthly homeward travel 
• A guaranteed return to your originating LDU at the end of your deployment (after 24 months) 

Further detail of the support offered is set out below. 

Which locations are they? 

We are offering this opportunity in the following LDU’s (exact office locations to be confirmed as soon as possible): 

NPS Eastern – South Essex LDU and Hertfordshire LDU 

NPS London – City, Hackney and Tower Hamlets LDU and Hammersmith, Fulham, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster LDU 

NPS Kent, Surrey, Sussex – Isle of Sheppey (Prison – Probation POM roles) and Surrey LDU NPS South Central – Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire LDU 

Accommodation and travel costs 

As part of the scheme, you would be entitled to the following: 

•  A monthly payment towards accommodation costs of up to £589 per month outside of London, and £659 within London for the duration of the scheme. 
• Costs towards travel home once a month, of up to £100 on each occasion, in line with current public transport rate. However, this element will be dependent upon government restrictions with regards to travel and COVID 19. 
• Premia payments totalling £3,000 per candidate (£1,500 at the end of 12 months deployment, £1,500 after 24 months deployment) 
•  A guarantee of a workplace within a suitable travelling distance of the candidate’s permanent home pre-deployment, at the end of the deployment 

Interested? What to do next 

We hope you are interested as all these LDU’s offer excellent career opportunities for the start of your Probation Officer careers in HM Prison & Probation Service. 

All of the above locations have immediate vacancies. As soon as you have reached your temporary promotion date, we envisage that you will be able to join within 4 weeks. 

If you are interested, please advise the person who is co-ordinating the allocation process in you region. Your region will confirm to you who this will be. They will then note your interest and you will be contacted with more information in the coming weeks. 

Yours sincerely, 

Sonia Flynn 

NPS Executive Director

Relief in Nottingham

Due to the prevailing climate of secrecy and fear, not much information leaks out of HMPPS nowadays, which makes the following contribution of particular interest as an indicator of mood and morale following recent Midlands personnel changes:- 

Anonymous tales from Sherwood Forest

A new era has dawned in the Forest as the last legacy of the nasty sheriff of Nottingham who ruled over the old Trust has been cut. After the Trust CEO and many of her mischief makers left the Castle under TR, so one member of the Senior Management Team was left to captain the HMPPS ship to new and uncharted seas. It failed and most importantly there are lessons for the good and the great at HMPPS high command to learn and act on.

Six difficult years later the captain has gone and many employees, past and present have reasons to be cheerful again. The captain has certainly left a legacy but not one that many probation staff would want or should have to endure again. Clearly a good leader and captain should lead, make a difference and take the crew with her or him. Sadly, and most disappointingly, like the Costa Concordia incident, the captain of a ship in trouble should stand up for his crew and take responsibility for the shortcomings and failings under their watch. 

It seems that leadership skills were certainly not a required element for an LDU head here. To misquote a sporting phrase; this was not a manager who had lost the dressing room, this was a manager who did not know where it was and was not able to engage and listen to his team members.

Rewind to an SFO and high profile murder and not unexpectedly, the Mr Teflon coat comes out. Blame front line staff for all shortcoming and be complicit in a misleading press statement (we now have more staff - oh but don't mention we don't have any extra POs than a year ago!!). No wonder staff in the LDU who already considered themselves vulnerable to the "LDU ethos" which had already driven staff to leave, now realised they really had no one covering their back. 

In an LDU which has a history of high workloads and staff recruitment, with a difficult working environment, so additional fear was ramped on top of everything else. Thankfully, it's over now but not without a significant casualty list of employees whose lives and careers have been damaged to varying degrees because of the poor leadership and command management of the LDU. This must not be allowed to happen again.

Probation Behind Bars

In the alphabet soup world of probation, OMiC is on the lips of many NPS staff as they contemplate having to serve a term behind bars under yet another new initiative. I notice Napo have published their considered thoughts on the matter:-

Offender Management in Custody – Napo view 

Napo has been in consultation with the OMIC project team for several months. This is a consultation, where the employer shares their plans and the Trade Unions have an opportunity to make comments. There is no way for any Trade Union to agree or disagree the plans, we can only comment and make suggestions. We are aware that some Divisional management teams have been presenting matters as “agreed with the Trade Unions” but this is not the case. 

Here we set out what we know and the concerns that we have about the model and the impact of implementation. So far we have been in consultation primarily with the design team given much of the implementation has been delegated to Divisional Implementation Boards (DIBS) which are comprised of both prison and NPS members. All of the information we know so far relates to public sector prisons. We are aware that discussions are ongoing with contracted out prisons but we have not received the detail on this as yet. 

What we know so far 

The DIBS were sent “Data Packs” comprising of approximately 100 pages of documents including projected figures for OMIC staffing (both probation and prison band 4 - formerly Offender Supervisors) based on a projected figure for each of the closed male prisons at a point in 2019. We know that the data shared with divisions and with prisons may be flawed, this has been admitted by the centre following questions by TUs and the divisions. It seems that differences in calculations of resourcing, along with differences in how divisions allocate current resources may have skewed things unhelpfully. What we do know is that the likely additional resource going into most prisons will be minimal (0.5 to three additional staff) but most of the High Security and Cat B establishments may require more (up to eight additional staff). The divisions (via the DIBS) have until the end of March to make an impact assessment to ensure that they can still deliver community work when they move staff to fill the vacancies in prisons. Despite the influx of new POs via the PQiP there are still likely to be shortages in some areas over the next couple of years, especially as the additional SPO resource for prisons is likely to come from the current PO group of staff. 

We have been told that WMT measures will not be used for custody work and that the project group have devised a resourcing model. This has been done with no consultation about the impact of the change to ways of working and there is no explanation as to how the resourcing figures have been devised, although an explanation has been requested. It is important to note that NPS staff working in custody will not the doing the same role as is currently done with a custody case from the community, it will be a combination of that role and the current Offender Supervisor role. A huge amount of work by the employers, trade union members and other staff went into the WMT timings that we currently have in place for the community. These may not be perfect, but they are based on an agreement and are the best we’ve got. It is very disappointing that the OMiC model is not using a similar approach to workload management for staff who will be working in custody. 

Many LDUs are currently struggling to fill PO vacancies and this has an impact on workloads. OMiC is being presented in some areas as a potential part of the solution to this issue as the figures (which are flawed) appear to suggest that fewer staff will be needed than anticipated, speeding up the process of getting to the fully resourced stage. Implementation is due to start in April 2018 and complete by September 2019 and the Divisional Implementation Boards will be responsible for ensuring that community delivery is not affected by the transition. 

There will be an SPO in each prison, staffed on the basis of 1 SPO to between 10 and 14 members of staff which is higher than the community equivalent. 

The OM team in the prison will be made up of NPS POs, prison Band 4 staff (either operational i.e. uniformed or non-operational) known as Prison Offender Managers (POMs). In addition there will be prison case administrators. The SPO will be responsible for managing all the Prison Offender Managers. This means that the SPO will be managing a team made up of people who have a different employer and different terms and conditions and different organisational culture. The SPO will be the Head of Offender Management Delivery and will be line managed by the Prison Governor (Deputy) and therefore the OM team will sit within the prison structure. The NPS will however remain the budget / resource owner and mention has been made of a link to the NPS divisions for professional development. The existing prison Head of Offender Management will become the Head of Offender Management Services. 

NPS staff will be expected to remain in a custodial role for 3-5 years and those already working in custody will not be expected to spend more than a further 3-5 years in this setting. Divisions are expected to ask all staff if they would like to work in custody or not and seek volunteers to fill any vacancies. The prison supplement (£675 pa) will be paid and excess fares/mileage will apply to directed moves as per the permanent transfer policy. Newly qualified POs can be placed in a prison role but only if there is sufficient support and experience within the team for them. 

Napo Concerns

Aside from concerns about the feasibility of the model (it promotes inconsistency of Offender manager and will make it more difficult to create a positive working relationship with the client which is the foundation of desistance according to research) there are many other concerns that members have around the implementation of OMiC. These concerns need to be raised both nationally and at divisional meetings with the divisional implementation boards. 

Workloads 

As mentioned above, it is not clear what measurements HMPPS are using to determine resourcing and therefore workloads. The SBC and WMT measures are based on doing one part of the OM role from the community. The rest of the role was done in custody by the OS (employed either by NPS or HMPS). Using these figures would give both too low a figure for resourcing and for WMT purposes resulting in an immediate workload crisis for Probation staff working in custody who would be unable to fulfil expectations to do two people’s jobs in the time given for only one. It is not clear what the resourcing figures are based on. As indications of staffing numbers are being released this concern is becoming acute as members working in prisons where there will be only a minor increase in staffing wonder how they will absorb a huge amount of additional work and members working in the community become more resistant to moving into custody fearing even worse workload pressures than in the community. 

We have already had some NPS staff working in custody telling local Napo reps that they are expected to hold CRC cases because the prison staff who should be taking on this work are needed for operational work on the wings to keep the prison running. This has always been a concern and is magnified by the fact that the OM team will sit within the prison structure, signalling that they are a resource to be used for operational priorities. 

For SPOs going to work in prisons the prospect of managing up to 14 people in a team with more than one employer and different terms and conditions, along with responsibility for delivering such a significant change to ways of working is daunting and we have serious concerns about the manageability of workloads for SPOs as well as concerns about the line management arrangements. It is already challenging for SPOs to manage a community team of 10 staff with the same employer and we have made representations that this ratio is wrong. 

Process of moving staff into custody roles 

Prisons are not evenly distributed around the country. There will be some members who do not live within an hour’s travel of a prison. When this was raised locally some DIB leads responded that all offices were within an hour of a prison, but this does not take into account that staff do not live in the office! There are some office locations which often struggle with staffing as they “feed” more than one prison with location meaning that they are the only “feeder” office. This poses another problem, if staff are moving out of some office locations to fill prison spaces but not others will there need to be a re-distribution of remaining staff to fill vacancies? The employer needs to bear in mind that since 2014 there have been more than usual office and staffing moves due to the segregation of CRC and NPS in many areas followed by re-distribution of staff due to E3. The process has been broadly painful for staff, with confusion over policy and process and a lack of common sense or pragmatic approach, never mind compassion. 

The process for moving staff is not given much attention in guidance, managers are simply told that 60 mins travel time is appropriate (90 mins in London) and to take account of reasonable adjustments. However, we have had some incidents of members facing extreme financial pressures as a result of being moved (exacerbated by the lack of fairness in the pay system) and members having to reduce their working hours (adding to the workload crisis) simply to accommodate additional travel. We would like to see additional guidance which includes the need to take all personal circumstances into account and to enter into genuine consultation on any directed moves. 

Flexible working and accessibility 

There are examples of members being told that, as they are moving to a prison role, their compressed hours or other flexible working arrangements (that allow them to balance work and caring or other responsibilities) cannot be honoured. This appears to be a problem in some establishments more than others, which reflects each individual prisons “culture” rather than a consistent HMPPS approach given there are also positive examples. There have also been examples of members being moved out of a prison role due to mobility issues (many prisons are impossible to move around without significant amounts of walking including stairs), there are examples of members being told they will have to leave medication they need regular access to in their car as it is not appropriate to have it in the prison meaning they have to leave the prison and re-enter via search etc each time they need to take it. All of these issues would need to be considered when deciding who should move to a prison role. A member may not require any adjustments in their current workplace but that does not mean the prison environment would be accessible to them. We have some members who do not drive, either by choice or not and it not an occupational requirement for Probation Officers to drive. Many prisons are not reasonably accessible by public transport given their physical location and this also needs to be taken into account. 

Location and Geography 

Most prison roles are currently filled by staff working in a local LDU cluster, especially when direction is needed. This is reinforced by the idea that, even though we are all working for the same employer, there is an imaginary wall between budgets for divisions and LDU clusters. It should be noted however that quirks of boundaries and transport and road networks can make a neighbouring LDU cluster area (even one in a neighbouring division) easier to access. Members would like to see volunteers for moves into prison being sought from all areas (including neighbouring divisions) before direction is considered, and for directed moves to include consideration of staff in other areas where travel could be within 60 minutes as well as the local LDU cluster. 

Safety in prisons 

There are some well publicised concerns about safety in prisons which are clearly of concern to our members. In all of the discussions about OMiC this is not mentioned in sufficient detail leading members to the belief that it is not being considered by the employer. Comment is made about the presence of alarm bells and radios but not a sophisticated understanding of the complexity of the individual we work with. In addition to the general considerations there are some members from BAME backgrounds who currently are not placed in certain offices due to concerns about their physical and emotional wellbeing. The employer must be able to demonstrate that they can meet their duty of care to staff when placing them in a custodial environment. This duty of care extends to emotional wellbeing and protection from abuse and discrimination as well as physical wellbeing. 

The transfer of cases between Prison Offender Managers and the community 

The data pack and the documentation contained in it has a series of PowerPoint diagrams (which are posted somewhere on the HMPPS intranet but not easily accessible) which identifies which type of case goes to HMPS, NPS and CRC and the point at which they transfer back to a community based colleague and in a number of cases back again. It is a complex set of scenarios, which has the potential to cause confusion especially if the underpinning IT or other systems are not in place. 

Contracted out prisons 

Less is understood at this point about the model for contracted out prisons, and the interface between the NPS and prison in the model may be different for these establishments. We are aware that some members working in contracted out prisons have been given differing versions of the process that will apply to them, we are seeking clarification on this. 

Job Descriptions and Job Evaluation 

We have been told that no changes to job descriptions will be needed as a result of OMiC and that therefore no job evaluation will be required. We will work with members closely to monitor this and, once there is more information available about the roles, there may be evidence to support a request for new or amended job descriptions. Where there are new job descriptions or significant amendments to job descriptions there would of course be a job evaluation process.

New Look Probation

The Probation Inspectorate's report into the Durham Tees Valley area gives us an opportunity to see in some detail what a 'transformed' probation service looks like:-

5.1. Effectiveness of the CRC 

Organisational issues 

DTV was a small CRC covering a relatively large geographical area. It sat within two police force areas, those of Durham and Cleveland. At the time of the inspection, the CRC had concluded a major review of its operating arrangements and management structure, with the two CRC Local Delivery Units (LDUs), one for Durham and the other for Tees Valley (sometimes described as Teesside or Cleveland), combined into one. The former arrangement of two LDUs, however, was in place for the entire period we inspected. We looked at the work from Durham LDU, which included work with participants living in County Durham and the unitary authority of Darlington. 

In common with other CRCs, DTV CRC had to deal with all incoming requests for data, renegotiations of contracts, Probation Instructions, IT and other procurement issues, buildings, inspection, National Offender Management Service (NOMS) audits, staffing matters and anything else to do with running a private sector body delivering a contract to central government. As DTV was a small entity, this had stretched the CRC’s limited management resources considerably since June 2014. 

The projected workloads calculated prior to Transforming Rehabilitation had not come to fruition.* For DTV, the actual workload was around 30% lower than anticipated. That had an adverse impact on the CRC’s income. In order to manage its budget, the CRC had reviewed its management capacity and operating model. Additionally, they had lost frontline staff via natural attrition since Transforming Rehabilitation. For the whole of the CRC, i.e. the area covered by both Durham and Tees Valley, this had amounted to a reduction in the overall staffing complement of over 15% between June 2014 and April 2016 (with offender management reduced by about 23%). DTV had historically been a Probation Trust that enjoyed a low staff turnover, and most of the staff in post at the time of this inspection had been employed by the Trust prior to Transforming Rehabilitation. They retained a strong sense of loyalty and attachment to their new employing organisation. Overall, we found staff morale was good. With all the changes experienced, that, in itself, was a positive finding.

ARCC, the owning body, had appointed a new, independent, Chair in January 2016. The post-holder was a respected individual with a high-profile probation background. His, and ARCC’s, immediate priorities were to deliver improved governance arrangements, gain financial security for the CRC and provide a focus on performance (particularly that which had a financial impact). At the time of the inspection, this was work in progress, delivered with a fresh impetus. 

Shortly before the start of this inspection, the CRC had completed the planned move of its staff from the offices it had previously shared with the NPS, introducing remote or ‘agile’ working. This involved staff working from within their local communities, in community justice hubs and ‘office work’ from home when appropriate. While hubs had been in operation within DTV since 2011, historically they had mainly been used as reporting centres for those who had sufficiently addressed their offending related needs and could be managed on a ‘maintenance’ basis. The new method of working for operational staff from the CRC involved most contact with ‘participants’, the term used by the CRC to describe offenders or service users, taking place within the community hubs throughout their period of supervision. 

The new operating model provided one CRC office in Durham (there was a second CRC office in Stockton-on-Tees, for the south part of the CRC area). The senior management function operated across both sites. At the time we inspected, there were 17 hubs across the whole of the Durham area. This new way of working was dependent on responsible officers having appropriate and reliable IT facilities. It was impressive that the CRC had successfully delivered the required technological solution with so little staff dissatisfaction.

Phase two of IT developments needed to support the operating model, that is, delivery of its locally developed case management and workflow system, was scheduled for roll-out later in the year. There were a number of external barriers to be overcome with NOMS before phase two was available to responsible officers. The new case management and workflow system had been designed to provide real-time information to staff, and flag up what individual officers needed to do and by when to maximise CRC income through achievement of contractual performance measures. 

Like all other CRCs, DTV CRC was subject to monitoring against the contractual targets it had with NOMS. At the end of March 2016, the CRC was performing well against their contractual requirements and those measures applied by NOMS to provide assurance. 

Through the Gate resettlement services were introduced in May 2015 as part of the contract for CRCs. The aim was to provide access to resettlement services for all prisoners, including those remanded in custody and those who were subject to sentences of less than 12 months. The Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 introduced statutory post-release supervision for short sentence prisoners. This group of offenders had long been recognised as having very high rates of reoffending, and Through the Gate services were introduced to address that. Within the CRC area, Durham had higher reoffending rates than England & Wales as a whole, with those in Darlington being higher than those for County Durham (Appendix 2 Table 5). 

The CRC had deployed considerable resources into Through the Gate, more than was reflected within the ‘fee for service’ income paid for delivery of these services by NOMS. That was encouraging, and demonstrated the CRC’s commitment to tackling high reoffending rates. Through the Gate provided a service to prisoners in relation to accommodation; finance and debt; and education, training and employment (ETE). Support was also offered to sex workers and those who were victims of domestic abuse. 

Although opportunities were in place for the NPS to purchase programmes and services from the CRC, in practice this happened infrequently. Normally, this only occurred when mandated by the sentence of the court. The CRC was unable to access court trend data or identify wider offender needs, which meant they were less able, proactively, to spot the gaps in provision and fill them.

* National Audit Office ‘Transforming Rehabilitation’ report dated 28 April 2016. Paragraph 4.3 says ‘The extent and pace of CRCs’ transformation plans have become more uncertain because their case volumes are much lower than planned during bidding. Volumes are down between 6% and 36% against the mid-point agreed in the contracts’.

Operational issues 

The CRC had produced a document entitled Processes and Quality Standards – Community Justice Hub, which set out the requirements, beliefs and practices for the hubs. This included health and safety considerations for staff working in them. The CRC saw the hubs as offering a one-stop shop facility for participants, providing a supportive environment to help them move away from, and out of, offending. The aspiration was to provide a physical environment that they described within the document as: ‘welcoming, informal, educational and purposeful, often comprised of a café type layout in a community centre where members of the local community are already attending. When the community justice hubs are operating well, they should resemble a vibrant community centre that anyone would want to attend, where colleagues, participants and agencies can have refreshments together, access the internet, and move forward together offering and accessing support and guidance. There should be a buzz atmosphere’. 

During the two weeks of the inspection, we inspected in ten of the community justice hubs across Durham. In some, we spent considerable periods of time and observed how they worked in practice. We spoke with responsible officers, participants, staff from other agencies, volunteers and a peer mentor. While a number of the hubs clearly met the aims of the CRC, others fell short. We thought the level of services provided at an individual hub would have a direct impact on a participant’s experience and progress towards desistance. The limited times some hubs were open, including some only available fortnightly, potentially had an adverse impact for some participants - for example those on weekly appointments or in employment. Senior managers described some of the less busy hubs, which offered little in the way of partner or provider attendance, as ‘reporting centres’. Their view was that participants could move between hubs to access services. In reality, for a number of participants that was not a practicable option. 

There was variable attendance of other agencies at the hubs, and, even when they did attend, their times on site were often uncertain. At the busiest hubs, Foundation Housing and an Integrated Offender Management (IOM) police officer were frequently present. Careers advice was also provided, with Change4Life (general health) and Lifeline (substance misuse) also attending. Support from administrative staff at the hubs had been withdrawn a few weeks prior to our inspection. Responsible officers staffing the busier hubs regretted the loss of that support. As a consequence of the withdrawal of administrators, the ‘meet and greet’ role at the hubs then fell to responsible officers, which some felt detracted from their ability to undertake their main duties. 

At the time of the inspection, the CRC was working towards integrating volunteers into the hub teams. There was no strategy or policy document in relation to volunteers, but there was an intention to produce a policy that would include role descriptions and identified areas of responsibility. There was one active peer mentor in Durham, but others were in place across the CRC as a whole. 

Following receipt of the required health and safety training, each responsible officer had been provided with a security device called Identicom which was a global position system locator. It provided a microphone so the individual responsible officer was able to ask for help if an urgent situation arose. Not all the hubs were easy to manage from a health and safety perspective. Some of them gave open access through the front door, and in some hubs there was a risk staff on duty may not have known who was in the building at all times.

Hubs were well located within the communities they served, with good access by public transport. Some would have benefited from better signage. In our view, there was a good geographical spread of hubs. 

In those less busy hubs where responsible officers were often waiting for participants to arrive, and where there were a lack of other agencies in attendance, reliability of the IT arrangements meant staff on duty could undertake administrative tasks without detriment to their productivity. We saw one hub, however, where responsible officers were having difficulty connecting via their laptops’ wireless connection. To address that, senior managers had provided all responsible officers with a compatible smartphone that provided a ‘hot spot’ boost to improve connectivity. Managers were reviewing the effectiveness of the arrangements to make sure they were reliable and cost effective. We thought the IT arrangements provided to responsible officers were impressive, with improved functionality promised for the relatively near future. 

Overall, we thought there was great promise in the hubs. The variable provision indicated a need to spread the best practice of some of the busier hubs, such as the ones in the city of Durham, across the area. In the meantime, and in acknowledgement of the difficulties they faced in securing attendance of partner and provider agencies at all the hubs as required, the CRC had an ambition, not yet realised, of arranging alternative, timely, appointments for participants with the relevant agencies. 

Accredited programmes were delivered at the CRC office on the outskirts of Durham. As it was difficult to access by public transport, bus fares were provided from participants’ homes to the city railway station, and the CRC then provided minibus transport for participants (both CRC and NPS) from the railway station to the office where accredited programmes were held. The programmes delivered by the CRC included Building Better Relationships and RESOLVE (both aimed at domestic abuse perpetrators), the Thinking Skills Programme and Drink Impaired Drivers programme. The last of these had been recently introduced in response to an identified gap in demand. Some NPS managers and responsible officers told us communication from CRC programmes staff could be improved in relation to sharing details of programmes available, current waiting times and the compliance and progress of their offenders undertaking a programme. Apart from where included as a requirement of a court order, there was little purchasing of programmes by the NPS. CRC middle managers noted a reduced demand for the Thinking Skills Programme, but could not evidence numbers due to a lack of access to court data. 

NOMS conducted an audit of three of the programmes delivered by the CRC (RESOLVE, Building Better Relationships and the Thinking Skills Programme) in late 2015, with the report issued to the CRC in March 2016. The findings were positive, with high rates of programme completions recorded (100% for RESOLVE) for the period covered by the audit. Positive feedback was received from participants and staff, with results for 12 of the 15 questions scoring higher (considerably higher in relation to some questions) than the average for all the CRCs that had undergone the audit previously. 

Harbour was delivering a rolling 27-week groupwork programme for men who were abusive and controlling towards their partners. The only exclusion was for those men who had a severe mental health condition. Although men attended the group voluntarily, attendance was enforceable if specified in relation to rehabilitation activity requirement (RAR) days. Waiting times to start the programme were only about one month. The programme was available free of charge to men from across the DTV area, with the exception of Darlington. If a perpetrator from Darlington would benefit from the service, the CRC could purchase a place for them. We saw this as a useful resource for responsible officers from across the CRC. The Harbour service manager told us, however, there had been limited take-up to date. Harbour also offered a range of other services including a women’s refuge, five women’s safety workers who had weekly contact with victims, sexual violence counselling and a programme, Freedom, that helped women understand the beliefs of abusive men.

The quality of some of the practice we saw during this inspection was not likely to lead to reduced reoffending for participants. We saw little evidence of effective management oversight. Senior managers acknowledged that spans of control for the new community participation manager positions (four for the whole of the DTV CRC area) were large, but foresaw the impending case and workflow management system identifying on a risk basis the areas for management focus. Senior managers had concluded a major piece of work whereby cases were categorised into three intensification levels (set following analysis of Offender Group Reconviction Scores, risk flags, Child Protection etc.). This work aimed to provide greater equality of workload to the CRC’s four new community participation teams and the responsible officers within them. 

Responsible officers provided a mixed picture about their training. Some thought it good; others said little had been delivered. A number of officers were positive about Child Protection training delivered in 2015. The experience profile of many CRC responsible officers meant they already possessed substantial knowledge of core probation practice. The areas of training identified by responsible officers and other staff we spoke with as being required included the national case management system (nDelius), sentence plans, working with domestic abuse perpetrators (although, again, some responsible officers said effective training had been delivered), and working with participants who had mental health problems. 

At the time of our inspection, management restructuring at senior and middle manager levels was concluding. Indeed, a number of managers left their employment with the CRC at the end of the first week of our inspection. We heard consistent messages from responsible officers about the quality of their supervision and management support. Individual middle managers were highly regarded, kept an ‘open door’ and were seen as always willing and able to help with work issues or other problems. While recognising managers were busy and stretched, however, responsible officers told us formal supervision was rarely, or in some instances not, taking place. Management support had become reactive. Some relatively inexperienced staff reported they possessed insufficient knowledge in key aspects of their job; one said oversight was minimal and there was a lack of discussion around Child Protection and domestic abuse cases. 

While caseloads appeared manageable, with the exception of Darlington (acknowledged by senior managers as high, and in the process of being redressed), the comment of one responsible officer was illuminating:

“I have a caseload that is manageable. My manager is approachable, but we have to go to them. It is not a proactive management style. This is because of our agile working. Management systems have not become agile at the same time”. 

What responsible officers told us resonated with what we found when inspecting the 31 cases: little evidence of management oversight in those cases where we would have expected to have seen it. 

In relation to Through the Gate, DTV CRC was the lead host for four prisons within its area – HMP Low Newton (housing women), HMP Durham, HMP Holme House and HMP Kirklevington Grange (an open prison). The former two of those were located in County Durham, while the latter two were in Tees Valley. The NOMS contract and compliance teams had spent a lot of time looking at Through the Gate arrangements in England & Wales, and it was not part of our remit to inspect Through the Gate activity. 

Nonetheless, we met with staff working in the ‘departure lounge’ of HMP Low Newton on this inspection. CRC staff told us they saw everyone at the prison on reception, and their first task was to complete the resettlement plan on all offenders except, from May 2016, for those from Northumbria who were the responsibility of Sodexo Changing Lives. The CRC told us the basic screening information completed by the prison was often very limited. The CRC, therefore, reviewed the basic custody screening document (BCS1) before undertaking the resettlement plan (BCS2). 

The above observation about the quality of basic custody screening documents correlated with what we had found in a pilot inspection we carried out on Through the Gate in late 2015/early 2016 with HMI Prisons. HMP Low Newton was one of the prisons visited during that pilot, and the only one that housed women who had offended. The pilot inspection had looked at prisoners due for release in the following few weeks, with a focus on those who had received sentences of less than 12 months under the new Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014 legislation. A report with recommendations was sent to NOMS early in 2016. That report said ‘the overall quality of planning was significantly better in the one prison where staff were direct CRC employees. For example, there was an excellent resettlement plan prepared by the CRC staff in custody. It identified work needed on accommodation, ETE, finance, benefit and debt, and drugs. The plan was updated to show what work had been done, and in the end she was able to go back to her previous accommodation after that had been checked out.’ The prison referred to in the above comment about the overall quality of planning was HMP Low Newton. 

DTV CRC worked with two supply chain providers in Durham to provide Through the Gate services. The Wise Group offered the full range of services to prisoners to address their offending-related needs. When CRC staff identified needs that required addressing, they made a referral to Wise. 

North East Prisoner After Care Society ran the visitors’ centre and departure lounge. On the morning we visited, a woman who had been released commented, in our presence, on the welcoming and friendly environment provided within the departure lounge. We thought it provided a positive transition following release and prior to a released prisoner making their journey home. In the case of the woman released when we were present, the CRC probation service officer (PSO) within the Through the Gate team clarified the woman’s understanding of her licence conditions before she set off on her journey home. That woman had no accommodation to return to, which augured badly for her ability to avoid future offending. She admitted she was likely to mix with sophisticated offenders as soon as she arrived in her home area, and was therefore likely to steal to fund her drug use. 

The CRC held Wise to account by a monthly operational contract meeting. North East Prisoner After Care Society was able to show us many positive testimonials from women who had used and appreciated the departure lounge facility. 

To date, the CRC had not managed to become as involved as they would have liked in the general induction programme offered to all new prisoners, which would have provided an opportunity to motivate prisoners to take advantage of the Through the Gate arrangements. While the CRC copied resettlement plans into PNOMIS (the prison case management system), which we thought good practice, their staff did not have access to nDelius in the prison. That meant information had to be sent via secure email and then entered into the case management system by case administrators. That was not efficient, and potentially led to delays in sharing information with responsible officers. 

For women leaving HMP Low Newton, there was a volunteer mentor/support group, Open Gate. It primarily helped with the practical issue of transporting women to the local train station, which would have been otherwise problematic due to the rural location of the prison. There was a reasonable range of interventions available to women in the prison, including the Freedom Programme and those provided by Relate. 

Elsewhere, the CRC was unable to get Through the Gate outcome data from the NPS or out of area CRCs. Prisoners were low down on the priority list for local authorities, and few left prison with settled accommodation. Despite that, senior managers were clear Through the Gate was the right thing in which to invest their resources, but would be keeping the scheme under review. 

The CRC contributed to a range of social action projects in Darlington that enabled participants to make a positive contribution to their community. This chimed with the theory that desistance from offending was promoted by ‘normalising’ the individual who had offended and integrating them, as someone of value, into their local community. At the heart of the initiative was a desire to deliver effective programmes to reduce reoffending, through placing social investment in the community at the heart of rehabilitation. It took the premise that, if a person was to move forward and make positive changes to their life that reduced the likelihood of them reoffending, they needed to be able to develop a more positive sense of self. 

At the time of the inspection, there were three social action schemes with which the CRC was involved, all run under the umbrella heading of ‘Making good by giving back’. There was a monthly lunch club attached to the Darlington Fire Station community justice hub. The lunch club acted as an opportunity for participants to develop work-based and life skills, build their confidence and improve their likelihood of gaining employment.

Good practice example: The first cohort of participants attending the Darlington Fire Station lunch club gained a level 2 certificate in food hygiene. One-third of the participants went on to gain employment in the catering industry. A participant who had volunteered at the lunch club said: “Taking part in social action was the best thing I had done for myself, or anyone else, in a long time. It gave me the confidence to try something new. I had not worked for many years, but my experience here gave me the courage to apply for a job as a clerk. I know it is not in catering, but being involved in social action has helped me believe in myself again and has given me something to put on my CV and the confidence to go to an interview. And yes, I got the job!” 

The second social action project was a peace garden. The CRC worked with a local councillor on designing, planning and creating it in tribute to two First World War veterans who lived locally. The garden was scheduled to open in July 2016 to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. The CRC was planning to be involved in its ongoing maintenance. 

The third social action project was a joint venture with FRADE, a furniture re-use charity. Participants from the CRC and volunteers had renovated buildings at the back of the charity’s furniture shop. The aim of the project was for donated furniture to be renovated in the workshops and then sold in FRADE’s shop, with a percentage of the profits reinvested in the social action project. The project, entitled Re-build, provided a wrap-around service for participants with an opportunity for them to develop CVs and receive careers advice. Although the building works were only just completed at the time of our inspection, we met with some of the individuals involved in the work. One young man told us how working on the project had raised his confidence levels and he had achieved an interview for a job the following week. A different participant told us how the CRC staff involved on the project had treated him and others with decency. 

We thought the social action projects were ideal ventures in which individuals subject to CRC supervision could be encouraged to participate. Such attendance could be counted as RAR days. Throughout the inspection, we found confusion about RAR days from sentencers, managers and responsible officers alike. It was disappointing, therefore, that staff involved with the social action projects expressed concerns about a lack of ‘buy-in’ from responsible officers and their worries referrals would not be forthcoming.

E3 Napo Response 2

A RESPONSE FROM Napo TO THE E3 Blueprint

Napo the Trade Union for Probation and Family Court Workers, welcome the efforts made by the NPS to receive feedback from staff on the Blueprint. The initial analysis by NOMS of this feedback is helpful, but we are unable to share the expressed view (Chapter 10 – Conclusion) that “no major design issues have emerged”. This statement is not really supported by many of the comments made by staff – many of which echo what Napo has been saying for some time, notably around court work and report writing. Nor do we think the statement is supported in the following bullet points summarising the review of design work.

In his foreword, Colin Allars states that what is needed for the NPS to progress within the E3 format is an “evidence based model of practice….backed by a fair distribution of resource”. In the overview it is quite clearly stated that “…..we have worked with and involved experienced probation professionals in the development of all of these proposals” although the document itself is then lacking in terms of the source material provided by the authors through which anyone reading the document can refer to the necessary research which would support these claims.

Our views on the Blueprint are outlined below, with headings relating to those shown in the original Blueprint. These reflect the considerable efforts of members of Napo’s Professional Committee, and many members engaged in ‘front facing’ work with service users who have attended the E3 engagement events, supplemented by contributions from a number of our practitioner Officers. Appreciation is due to them all for their work. 

Chapter 2 - Courts

The clearly stated aim is to streamline the process to the extent that 90% of PSRs are completed on the same day, in a short format. In our view, the emphasis is clearly on maximizing the efficiency of the Court rather than on the effectiveness and accuracy of the assessment. In order to simplify matters it appears that RSR/CAS processes will be streamlined and a proposal framework developed taking much of the considerative work out of the process. Consequently, most Court staff will be PSO’s under this model. The paper mentions that PSO’s undertaking PSR’s will allow PO’s to focus on more complex work. We must question who has decided that initial assessments are not complex pieces of work? The PSR is not only a crucial stage for an individual case but for decisions about risk, allocation (CRC or NPS) and the future work required. An organisation which does not see its intake point to require the exercising of careful professional judgement rather than a quick fix, is storing up future problems for itself. 

The E3 scheme also admits that it relies upon physical space being found in the court buildings which has historically been a difficulty. The emphasis is on the quantity and speed of reports rather than quality. The E3 document informs us that the report writing hubs will enable the development of “improved report writing” – we fail to see how this can work.

This section cites Wales as providing evidence of ‘excellent performance’ using this model but does not elaborate other than to say it has provided same day reports ‘nearing 90%’, largely written by PSO’s suggesting excellent value for money (nothing on quality or knock-on effects elsewhere, however). How well would this model translate to a system suitable for the entirety of the NPS including large urban conurbations with large numbers of courts? What is the “PO back-up” system in Wales?

It also cites London as developing an ‘enforcement hub’ that leads to consistency that it would like to see rolled out (although it accepts that this might not work in all locations). 

2.3.1 Advocates dedicated court teams under separate management. This is already happening in some parts of England and Wales, but the proposals here look more like a complete separation to focus on a largely administrative function. The implications of this are obvious, in that it could lead to a rapid deskilling of staff and a lack of development opportunities. Now not only the PO’s in CRCs will be unable to prepare PSR’s on new or existing cases but it seems that PO’s in the NPS will also be redundant in this sphere. The submission of “progress reports” at the point of reoffending is yet another example of duplication of work, inefficiency and lack of continuity. The latter, re the individual casework model, flies directly in the face of a quote in the E3 document at 3.4 -“ HMIP reviews (Hanson and White2006 Rice 2006) record the potentially serious risks of ‘building in discontinuities’”

2.3.2 Expectation that 90% reports will be done on the day, 70% oral, 20% written using a short format. Again the implications of this are obvious, in that very few if any safeguarding checks will be completed pre-sentence, resulting in possible misallocation and creating opportunities for risks to be missed. This is particularly the case in domestic abuse cases. The lack of quality and thoroughness of short format and oral reports is such that CRC’s are finding a dramatic dip in their work - proposals are insufficient in terms of generating community orders in particular. Effective assessment of risk relies on accurate and timely information sharing. It is currently not possible in most areas to get information from Police Safeguarding units or Children’s Social Care on the same day, never mind within an hour. We are aware of examples of Police information taking up to 4 weeks to arrive (which is out of time for even an adjourned report). We are clear that this information is crucial to safe assessments and we are suggesting that an hour is the maximum that staff should have to wait for information. Until these arrangements are in place everywhere the proposals should not be rolled out. This is a major concern bearing directly, as it does, on funding and ultimately staffing. We would like to see further analytical work done on sentencing patterns before and since TR, with an open discussion on the implications of the findings. 

2.3.3 Advocates a move to almost exclusively PSO teams for reports except where dangerousness is involved. They will not be expected to write reports on sex offenders but there is a strong suggestion that DA, high risk and complex cases could all be done by PSO’s with appropriate training. This is a dangerous precedent in our view; PSO’s may well be able to develop the knowledge and skills base but this should be reflected in both their job title and remuneration – i.e. they should be trained and qualified as probation officers. 

SFO'S and risk assessments. One of the first questions asked when completing an SFO review is about the quality of the initial risk assessment. Our understanding is that reports have already shown a decline in quality in some areas, which is of concern. We have further concerns that if the standard practice is to remove the pre-sentence assessment period and further have it completed by lesser qualified staff, that this result is likely to show a further decline. It should be noted that even if a case is reassessed very quickly post sentence, this question will still focus on the initial assessment at point of sentence.'

2.3.4 Looks at admin hubs, but suggests this idea is put on hold while other developments around digital Courts are discussed elsewhere (which seems sensible) 

2.3.5 RSR/CAS are described as complex and in need of further development to streamline them, (whereas clinical assessment by qualified probation staff barely gets a mention!). We are extremely sceptical of both the RSR and CAS tools particularly when considering their cost effectiveness and their impact on workload. 

2.3.6 Proposal framework – no detail here but we suggest this is likely to be a tick-box menu of proposals to make it easy for unqualified staff to choose. Such a development is unlikely to enhance the quality of reports presented to the courts, is unlikely to enhance the standing of probation in the courts and is very unlikely to reverse the decline in appropriate community sentencing. 

2.3.7 Enforcement hubs – some advantages in terms of consistency but as with admin hubs we await more evidence of what’s happening with digital Courts. The E3 board are also looking at pilots running in NW and NE divisions before making any decisions, but the clear implication is that enforcement officers should be banded at 3 

2.3.8 Separate management of Courts outside LDU cluster. Has some advantages in terms of efficiency of resource allocation but is likely to lead to further fragmentation of the service and deskilling of the workforce.

2.4 In our view this section contains a truly staggering comment which recognises that while safeguarding information is difficult to obtain on the day, ‘it is rarely crucial to the sentencing decision’. It is certainly crucial to the management of cases. How, for example, does that work when curfews may be imposed without knowing who else is living in the premises? Here there could be “looked after children”, vulnerable adults etc. etc. These are concerns long voiced by Napo and re-iterated by staff in the feedback on the Blueprint.

2.5 Recognises the impact on PSO’s beyond their current VQ3 qualification and suggests some modules from the Community Justice Learning Programme could be utilised to meet this need. No further detail is currently available on this proposal and it looks like more of an aspiration than a properly thought out proposal. This also talks about excellent administration being in place to underpin successful delivery, yet we have numerous reports of IT systems and facilities which are clearly not fit for this purpose. For example, lack of interview and work space, and IT systems not working. Electronic (paperfree) courts mean that Probation is way behind and lacking in the proper tools to do the job. Many Courts simply don't have space required for NPS staff to conduct private interviews and write up reports. One example is of 15 staff in one Court queueing up to use one interview space! IT is a massive issue, paperwork can be emailed to NPS staff but there is a bureaucracy around this and emails can take hours to arrive due to our outmoded IT systems. Added to this is the fact that there aren't usually enough computers for staff to use; an example was given of Bradford Court where several staff were told they needed to share only 2 laptops which had been delivered but don't work as yet! In North Yorkshire, court staff have taken delivery of a batch of new laptops, none of which can be used wirelessly. They are in their 8th week of reporting this and still they do not have access to get the job done. We need to be clear that these proposals can only work once the infrastructure is in place and as this relies on other agencies (i.e. HMCTS) NPS should wait until they have everything in place before rolling it out.

Chapter 3 - Community Supervision

The goal here is to have a standard operating model across the NPS, however many of the variations in operations across the country have developed in response to local situations or to work with local partnerships or specialist projects. Losing the ability to do this would disadvantage clients who have benefited from such arrangements.

3.3.1/2 Introduces the new tiering model. Little detail is given and more will be needed to analyse the effectiveness of this model. We would also need to see the link between the tiering model and workload management timings to ensure that appropriate resource is being allocated.

3.3.3 Suggests that PSO colleagues will work with cases up to category C2 in the new tiering model. C2 includes low and medium risk cases where additional factors (MAPPA level 1, child protection plan, IOM, vulnerability) are not present. For some PSO’s this will not be new but in some areas of the country PSOs have not worked with medium risk cases in the past. These colleagues will require support and training and development opportunities to ensure they are properly equipped to carry out the work. Currently there is little or no training and development available for NPS staff outside of the PQF arrangements and significant additional resources will be required for this. Consideration will need to be given to offering alternative roles to PSO’s who do not wish to do this work. 

There is no indication of the number of cases to be managed by PSO colleagues but we are aware of significant recruitment of PSO’s in some NPS divisions which raises concerns about future staffing levels. The logic of this model is also that PSO’s in the NPS will be holding apparently higher risk cases than the PO’s in the CRCs – which is illogical.

3.3.4 Discusses "case management support" and lists types of tasks that may be completed by someone other than the OM. It does not detail who would undertake these tasks but appears to suggest Case Admin or PSO colleagues. While some purely administrative tasks are currently performed by Case Admin colleagues some of the tasks on this list raise concerns. For example information sharing is included as something that could be done by others. While purely administrative queries can be dealt with in this way’ proper information sharing is a 2-way process that supports the development of risk assessment and risk management plans by all agencies involved. If this is not done by the person responsible for the risk assessment and risk management there is the potential for vital risk indicators to be missed. This is all detailed in the research that the Blueprint uses to "evidence" the proposals, so it seems bizarre to suggest removing continuity in response to evidence that clearly states continuity as a key factor in risk management. Section 3.3.2 introduces the concept of individual case management which is not unfamiliar to Probation staff but some of the proposals in this section undermine that principle.

3.3.5 Introduces the idea of using volunteers to support the work of the NPS. Prior to TR many Probation Trusts were developing volunteer schemes but most of the staff involved in these schemes were transferred to CRC’s as their work was deemed to belong to those organisations. Some of the feedback from those schemes was that the process of properly developing and supporting volunteers is very resource intensive. There is no "quick fix" and volunteers can never be used as a way to save money. We would support well-funded/properly organised volunteer schemes but the proposal to use external agencies is concerning. Maintaining safety and quality requires staff with a good understanding of the work of the NPS alongside staff with skills in working with volunteers.

3.3.6 Discusses the possibility of group interventions. This section will astound NPS staff who previously worked very effectively with their colleagues who delivered group-based interventions, most of which are now working in CRCs. The idea that the NPS will now develop group based interventions where those that the CRC offer are perceived as too expensive, is bizarre and undermines the case for TR itself. In some cases group based intervention can be very effective but not always. Any group based interventions will require careful development and properly trained staff. Whilst we acknowledge that the NPS have retained a number of staff with these skills, the resource exists in the CRC’s and it should be the role of the contract managers to ensure that it is affordable for the NPS. It is not the role of NPS staff to take on additional work to fill in the gaps. Any decision to move towards this model will have clear resourcing implications and hence a need to recruit widely to facilitate the freeing up of time.

Chapter 4 - Custody.

It is noted in the document that the details of the Offender Management in Custody review, conducted separately, has not yet published its recommendations and this may have a significant impact on the NPS work with those serving custodial sentences. This is likely to affect both Probation Staff in the community and those working in custodial establishments, and has the potential to bring about significant changes. We would like to know when this will appear. 

4.1 What does the model look like now?

There is comment made in relation to Parole Reports as a generic term, however there appears to be some confusion over the type of work being undertaken. NPS colleagues prepare reports on a number of different types of prisoners and the format for those reports are different, as can be the decision making when the case is reviewed by the Parole Board.  For example the reports prepared for Indeterminate Sentenced prisoners (IPP prisoners and Life Sentenced prisoners etc.) are different to those prepared on a Licence Recall prisoner.

Comment is made that those offenders recalled to custody have their cases reviewed routinely by the Parole Board at set intervals. Whilst there is usually an initial review, it’s the experience of our members that there can be problems with subsequent reviews due to backlogs at the Parole Board. This can be problematic to the prisoner however also has an impact for the sequencing of work and resources for staff, both in custody and in the community.

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

There is little recognition about the limited resources available within a number of custodial establishments including resettlement prisons, nor of the significant changes that the prison estate and many of its providers have gone through. This could have a significant impact on the suggestion that “those eligible will be able to access interventions early in their sentence”. In addition, motivational work may need to be done with individuals to ensure that they will be as receptive as possible for any planned intervention.

We would be interested in your proposals of the timing of the MAPPA process and how it could be used to inform target sentence planning.

Whilst we would welcome any improvement in the quality of reports to the Parole Board, Napo would be like to know what is meant by the front loading of quality assurance into the parole process, especially how this will happen, who will do it and where are the resources coming from.

Comment is made in this section about increasing the release of suitable prisoners at the first parole hearing. It would be helpful if these were more explicit and there is an acknowledgement of the different types of case heard by the Parole Board. For example this is more likely to happen if it was a review of a licence recall case rather than an indeterminate prisoner given the first review will be pre-tariff in those cases.

The proposal to work with colleagues at PPCS and presumably also at the Parole Board to make greater use of telephone and video conferencing for reviews is welcome as it would be a much more effective use of the Offender Manager time. Consideration also will need to be given to the physical resourcing of this for both probation offices and prisons, given that there is a limited amount of equipment available. It would also be helpful if discussion occurred about the timing of Oral Hearings. For example we are aware of one proposed Oral Hearing which was scheduled to start at 16.45. This is a potential hearing of 1.5-2 hours and the prison cannot accommodate it due to regime and staffing levels at that time of day.

4.3 End state proposals

4.3.1 Parole

We would appreciate more details and input from a professional association perspective into a review of when the MAPPA process should commence and how it could link to sentence planning at an early stage.

We note the question on EPIC “how will the programme deal with the issue of parole reports asking for addendums 6 months after the report was commissioned” The response makes reference to a meeting between the Director of Probation and the Parole Board Chief Executives to discuss inefficiencies in the system. Again comment is made about improved quality of reports supporting more offenders on the day of scheduled hearings, driving down the backlogs of hearings and reducing the need for addendum reports. Whilst a reduction of the backlog at the Parole Board would be helpful to NPS staff, It is our experience that many of the addendum reports being requested are for indeterminate prisoners and they arise from the whole structure and time-tabling of the Generic Parole Process and on occasions two or three addendum reports are being requested.

It is welcome that there is a proposal for training for Offender Managers for parole and Oral hearings. It would be useful if that is also made available to NPS staff in custody and if an arrangement can be made with HMPS colleagues.

It would be our view that such training would not be suitable for e-learning.

In terms of the long term proposal for the removal of SPO signatures, it is not clear if this links to re-call reports which also require an ACO signature at some stages, or Indeterminate Sentence Prisoners, or both.

In terms of the proposal for the wider use of ROTL for attendance on accredited programmes where these are not available in prisons, we believe that there will need to be liaison with the Prison Service in relation to this, and a review of the relevant Prison Service Instructions; especially given there are restrictions on MAPPA eligible prisoners going on ROTL and access to periods of ROTL have been reduced significantly in a number of establishments.

4.3.2 Recall

The greater use of executive re-release could be beneficial if all parties take the view that risk can be safely managed within the community.

In terms of improving the timeliness and quality of recall reports, and as a result reducing the number of oral hearings; whilst improvements in quality would always be welcomed, it is not evident how this would reduce the number of oral hearings especially in light of Osborn and Booth 2013.

4.4 Impact on Service Delivery

We would welcome consultation on the Quality Assurance Framework given that we have members working both in the community and custody who have significant experience of preparing reports for the Parole Board and giving evidence at Oral Hearings.

More details of the plan for an “earlier and more comprehensive risk assessment including access to interventions and intelligence sharing” would be helpful.

4.5 Impact on Staff

As previously stated we welcome the encouragement to make greater use of video links etc. However in terms of service delivery, there is the potential for staff never to have met the client prior to giving evidence at an Oral hearing. Therefore a balanced approach is needed.

A widening of the use of PPUD could be beneficial although our understanding is that it is limited at this stage to a small number of case administrators and we would be interested in your proposals to make improvements in the use of it.

Chapter 5 - Victims

5.2 States that the VLO role is a band 3 role but that this is subject to a review of the job description and job evaluation. It is strange that this pronouncement is made in advance of the job evaluation process and this suggests that the job evaluation will be manipulated to come to the answer required by NOMS as opposed to being a fair and transparent process. In those areas where VLOs are paid at band 4 this is as a result of a previous job evaluation process. It is vital that NOMS commits to a fair and transparent job evaluation process and also to positively supporting any staff who may be affected by re-banding following such activities.

5.3.1 Introduces the idea of admin hubs for victim work. While this may provide more administrative support for some VLOs who currently have none it will reduce administrative support to those VLO teams who currently have an on-site administrator. There are issues about case records and how they will be managed as well as concerns about the new IT model. There is a poor track record with regards to the introduction of new IT systems. They are regularly introduced before they have been properly tested and it is rare for practitioners to be properly involved in their development. It should also be noted that systems introduced recently were not properly tested for AT compliance and it is hoped that lessons will be learned in the development of any new victim systems. 

5.3.2 Appears to introduce a kind of tiering model to measure the complexity of the VLO cases. It is silent on how cases will be placed into each of the groups and doesn't indicate how this information will be used to manage workloads in practice. Without more information it is difficult to comment on the use of these bands. The bands are however very task based and make no mention of the actual complexities of working with vulnerable individuals. There is no mention of the additional complexities of working with victims who are also serving a sentence, or working with complex cases involving multiple co-defendants or offending families with victims and offenders.

Chapter 6 – Approved Premises

6.3.1 Introduces the proposal that all AP’s will become enabling environments or ‘PIPE’ establishments over the next 3 years. This will undoubtedly have an impact on the need for further staff training with most establishments being staffed almost exclusively by PSO’s. We would be interested to see what training is proposed and how this will be rolled out. Another concern around these changes is the increasing difficulty for OMs to access beds for those high risk cases who do not meet the criteria for a psychologically informed environment. Our members are already starting to feel the impact out in the field and the availability of a suitable bedspace, or not, can impact hugely on whether or not the practitioner is able to support release. 

6.3.2 Sadly, we will always be sceptical with regard to proposed new ICT systems. “The ICT requirement for this is likely to be met quickly” The description of how this will be achieved and the resulting benefits is a little glib, but we agree that we should seek to reduce the time commitment of AP managers to this process.

3.3.3 Whilst on paper this seems to be a sensible proposal, saving time on duplication of work, we are unsure how effective this may be in practice. As you have highlighted this system is already in place in some areas, either formally or informally, but staff have not indicated much being seen in the way of improvements. We acknowledge that this could have been contributed to by other changes in progress, and would be interested in any data you have evidencing that this is an improved state.

6.3.4 In relation to the concept of ‘standard’ and ‘complex’ APs, we would need to know more about this and how it is to be calculated before commenting.

6.3.5 Napo welcomes the commitment to double waking night cover at all times, and a Band 5 AP manager for each establishment. However moving to such an arrangement will require careful negotiation bearing in mind current staffing structures. Concerns have been expressed both in workshops and feedback regarding day/night staffing, standard payments for sessional staff, rostering and out of hours payments. We acknowledge that there are many current anomalies which we would have liked to have seen sorted out before now. Again, rationalization here will need to involve careful negotiation and attention to detail. We are unclear as regards how the administrative support staff arrangements that are proposed will work.

We would seek confirmation that work on the Health and Safety aspects of these new proposals has involved union Health & Safety representatives.

6.5 We would seek further clarification regarding the role of key workers and most notably how they will be rostered. What is also less than clear is what type of regime will be operated during daylight hours at weekends.

Napo would wish to express its serious concern regarding the use of security staff at any time of day or night, particularly when they are employed on sub-contracts to the private sector. They must have the requisite interpersonal skills and training and need to be able to work readily and collaboratively in the AP environment which must involve a degree of regularity in their use at any one establishment. Lack of familiarity with systems, staff and indeed residents will be unhelpful. This will be true also of sessional staff.

The interchange of staff as between the AP estate and other areas of NPS work such as offender management has yet to be explored properly. In principle, Napo favours the development of a workforce with the ability to move across all aspects of NPS work and thus with a greater breadth of experience. This will however necessitate attention to training/re-training as well as a better commitment to mobility policies. Quite how this might be effected for bands (1), 2 & 3 remains for discussion. Linked to this, particularly in the event of an initial significant reorganization of staffing structures, is the need for careful planning and incremental introduction with sufficient time for support, training and taster sessions in other environments where appropriate.

Chapter 7 – Youth Offending Services

7.1 Harmonisation of staffing and working models is long overdue. Since the YOS was created in 1998, no real thought has been given to the relationship between the YOS and the Probation Service. This has been particularly true of the use of and impact on probation staff. Sadly the benefits of multi-agency working have not been sufficiently realised through cross-fertilisation with staff moving in and out of the YOS under mobility policies.

7.3.1 A commitment to a national framework is welcome and long overdue.

7.3.2 The commiment to standardising band 4 secondments is welcome, though we are not sure that the use of band 3 staff should be ruled out altogether.

7.3.3 Caseloads - Where has the caseload figure of 25 young people been derived from? The statement is made with no supporting references as to what research was undertaken to come up with this figure. Our understanding is that maximum caseloads within YOT’s, for very good reasons, are around 15. Is it not somewhat insulting to suggest that seconded Probation Officers could manage this much higher caseload where qualified social workers who work as Case Managers within YOTs are unable to do so? Presumably, to manage this higher caseload, corners would necessarily need to be cut to achieve this in terms of the work that seconded Probation Officers undertake. Have YOT’s been consulted about how they would feel about some of their young people being treated differently in terms of receiving a lesser service and the inevitability of seconded probation staff missing some of the YOT’s National Standards owing to such a high caseload? It seems utterly bizarre to suggest that case managers managing high risk cases can cover 25 cases when the average for low/medium risk cases is no more than 15 in YOTs

Have YOTs been consulted about seconded probation staff working exclusively with older, higher risk young people? How do YOT’s feel about how this may de-skill their own staff in this area of work? 

7.4 Impact on service delivery – There is no mention in the Blueprint about the role of CRCs and CRC staff. Whilst acknowledging the statutory restrictions, it seems illogical that all young people passing the age of 18 should move into the NPS, if still subject to supervision. They should move directly to a CRC or the NPS depending on risk assessment. Where the NPS is becoming overloaded with work and some CRCs are not receiving sufficient work, this would seem doubly sensible.

7.5 Impact on staff – We would not disagree with the sentiments expressed here though, as already highlighted, secondments, protocols, training etc., have never really been methodically addressed. Equally, we would pose the question as to the potential role of CRC staff in YOT‘s or working with them.

Chapter 8 - Management Structures

8.1 We acknowledge that these need rationalising but this will require commitment to proper negotiation recognising existing structures and staff gradings – This is covered to an extent in 8.5.

8.3 The big failing is the ludicrous extent of HR work currently vested in middle managers (Bands 5 to ACO) since the demise of Trusts and the disappearance of local HR support. Complex clusters will require additional support in our view, in that often LDU clusters are hopelessly overloaded and proper resolution of this issue is critical.

There is very little in this chapter about the role of SPOs and this is a failing. The main concern is where will POs and PSOs, to say nothing of trainees, within teams, get the professional supervision which they need? Group supervision is mentioned somewhere but it still needs to run alongside some individual supervision. It is not entirely clear what grade the QDOs mentioned might be and whether their role will be as supporters of good practice or overseers and checkers. This is very vague. Also, the place of clinical supervision of staff dealing with high risk work all of the time is not addressed anywhere.

Again with reference to attendance at multi agency meetings, it is stated that, (as pre TR) MASH and MARAC will “sit at PO level” – with these meetings, liaison which was already convoluted pre-TR is made more complicated by the need to have adequate communication channels between CRC and NPS especially as the CRC has a high number of the DV and CP cases.

8.4 We are interested to explore how the tool works

We agree that more work is required on this chapter of work.

Chapter 9 – Other Supported Activity

Reference has been made in our response to Chapter 2 to the historic and ongoing issues of sufficient and appropriate accommodation within Courts. This, linked to continuing ICT issues, will remain a critical stumbling block to service provision within Courts for the foreseeable future. It hampers all models of service provision, existing and proposed. It can only be adequately addressed by first addressing the underlying power imbalance that exists between HMCS and the probation service (NPS), with the latter historically existing as a poor relation – founded no doubt in the original master/servant relationship. 

The re-ordering of the NPS estate as CRC’s increasingly move out, will be critical to the success or failure of any future operating models, and Napo would expect to have full consultation over this going forwards, as a key stakeholder.

Proposals for administrative ‘hubs’ have yet to be discussed at all and are far from agreed. There would be significant issues both around service provision as well as working arrangements for staff.

Linked to comments at 3.3.6 above, we question the proposals for the further expansion of group and programme work. We understood this to be primarily the province of CRC’s (apart from sex offender work) and would wish to know more about what is being proposed.

Facilities Management – Similarly, here we would expect full consultation over the future re-letting of these contracts. Napo has long been in favour of returning AP catering to an in-house provision as it has a special role involving not only feeding residents but also the development of essential life-skills.

Learning and Development – Whilst the new probation qualification scheme (CJL) is something that Napo has long supported, this is not really the vehicle for the support and development of existing staff, notably PSOs. This requires a specific and separate initiative – and one which will need to be in place and activated before any of the prosed changes are made.

Chapter 10 – implementation Approach

A realistic timeframe with appropriate milestones needs to be proposed and discussed.

Chapter 11 – Conclusion/Engagement

Napo acknowledges the efforts made to include staff in the planning stage of the E3 blueprint document. This has been done via a number of methods; electronically, face to face consultation meetings and consultation with the unions. However, we would like to remind you of the limitations of this, with a relatively small number of people actually getting involved in the process and thus a limited view of the wider workforce. 

We note that NOMS intend to widen the requests for feedback by use of an online survey and general E3 facility to mail in questions, which is already in place. Again we would like to note that the likelihood of widespread response is limited given the pressures of workload and limited understanding of the changes. These points have been raised before but are worthy of note here.

In respect of the future operating model for the NPS, it is crucial that NOMS get the communications right, in terms of timeliness, style and method. These need to be succinct, and especially cover: ‘the how will it affect me’ aspects and be easy to digest. We feel that this is essential if the intention is to take the relevant staff group with you, and that these communications must include appropriate feedback on the critical issues raised by NPS staff through their trade union. 

Napo welcomes the opportunity to continue our current dialogue with you on the E3 project.

Ian Lawrence                      Yvonne Pattison     Chris Winters
Napo General Secretary     National Co-Chair   National Co-Chair

27th January 2016