Time To Try Something Else

Many in probation would say OMiC or Offender Management in Custody has been a disaster and a clear sign of HM Prison Service having the whip hand in HMPPS. The Howard League is clear about what needs to happen:- 

What to do about Probation?

We have heard a lot about prison overcrowding over recent weeks, not least because of the Howard League’s own efforts, but there is overcrowding in probation too. And that matters, because the probation service is going to be asked to do more in the future.

Shabana Mahmood has made a welcome commitment to recruit 1,000 more trainee probation officers but as she acknowledged in Parliament, this is not new investment but a redeployment of resources. Probation will need that new investment and one place where the money could be found is in the budget currently earmarked to build new prisons. We shall see if the Ministry of Justice is able to follow the logic of its own announcements in the coming months.

In the meantime, what does probation reform look like? The Howard League is clear that the probation service should be delivered within a localised structure and with independence from the prison service. See, for example, the evidence we gave to the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry into community sentencing.

Such a restructuring will take time, however. What could ministers do right now to address concerns around probation caseloads and ensure, as we have said, that probation is equipped to be the ‘ultimate guarantor of public safety’? Here is one idea.

The probation service currently seconds a significant number of qualified and experienced probation officers to prisons. At the time of the last joint inspection in 2022, it amounted to 135 senior probation officers and 626 probation officers (although the targets for recruitment amounted to 206 senior probation officers and 797 probation officers).

Readers might be questioning why there are hundreds of probation officers working in prisons. They would not be wrong. The joint inspection into the reasons why, the Offender Management in Custody’ (OMiC) model, found that it was “simply not working”. Inspectors found shortfalls in public protection work, information sharing, and relationship building between prison staff, probation workers and prisoners. They went on to remark:

Despite transfer of almost 800 probation officers to POM [‘prison offender manager’] roles in prisons, we found very little added value from these posts. They had little direct contact with prisoners and were not clear about their roles and responsibilities under the OMiC model. Handovers to COMs [‘community offender managers’] were often of poor quality and little work was completed to prepare prisoners to work with COMs for their resettlement. We found little contact by POMs with prisoners, to work with and complete sentence planning with them.

When something is simply not working, it is time to try something else. The government should redeploy those probation officers working in prisons within the community. Work to prepare people for release from prison can be done just as effectively, if not more so, beyond the prison gates.

There may be resistance from within HMPPS and from those probation officers seconded to working in prisons. It is, as one former chief probation officer has remarked, a simple case of “the pressures in the prison probation officer role not matching those of the community probation officers. There is absolutely no chance of a ‘prison offender manager’ being caught up as the responsible supervising officer in a Serious Further Offence review.”

That shouldn’t stop the Ministry of Justice grasping the nettle, to reiterate our current mantra, and making the change. To deploy so many probation officers in prison when community workloads are so high is just irresponsible.

Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns

Comments

This is an interesting take. As an OMiC Senior Probation Officer, I can hardly be distinguished as being impartial to the above, however, I can certainly provide a ‘front-of-house’ view. The concerns I have with this proposal:

1. Many COM’s are overstretched to such an extent that they are unable to prioritise their custodial cases. Therefore, many POM’s go above and beyond the OMiC model to make up for the shortfalls from community teams. If OMiC is dissolved, there will be tens of thousands of prisoners who may feel neglected.

2. OMiC staff retention is generally healthy – transfer POM’s into the community against their will, then they will simply leave the service. Alas, we will have staffing issues in both the community and custody.

3. Due to community staffing levels, OMiC has never had the opportunity to launch as intended. The sensible thing to do would be to wait for the conclusion of the acute recruitment drive and then assess the shortfalls of OMiC.

In contrast, my view is that OMiC has the capacity to work effectively with the following proposals:

1. POM/COM handover date is pushed from 8.5 months prior to release, to 3 months before release. This will allow the COM more breathing space to prioritise community cases, and will put the onus on OMiC/resettlement teams to complete Approved Premises referrals/ generic accommodation referrals.

2. Parole reports, in my view, are the wrong way round. As drawn on above, POM’s generally spend more time with cases as they are more accessible – so they know them best. Parole reports should be led by the POM, with the COM providing an RMP to effectively manage said prisoner should they be released.

--oo00oo--

Andrew. I agree and would suggest a further clarification of the role of OMU, POM and COM as experience suggests that there is much confusion over who does what and particularly when it comes to the continuum of sentence planning – preparation for release – post-release supervision. OMU and POM can be the same person but have limited planning/discussion/hand-off with COM. COM personnel changes are frequent. So yes, leave the OMU to focus on sentence planning and pull the POM and COM roles together outside the prison to prep the individual for what comes next and then support them through it. That’s a much simpler system. And the continuity of an individual POM/COM probation officer building a relationship through planning for release whilst an individual is inside and supporting that same individual post-release could provide enormous benefits to all. Even if there is a handoff to a specialist community PO a month after release, having the continuity from the POM/COM ensures a simpler and, logic would suggest, more effective transition.

Pick of the Week 17

CRC probation officers are being told they will hold about 50 medium risk cases. Many unpredictable DV cases. Will also have to cover Marac and in addition assist PSO's or oversee some of their work and advise if need to pass to a PO. Basically doing some of the work of middle managers who will soon be reduced by 50%! 

In addition struggling with admin staff moving to hubs and some offices have no reception or admin to field calls so we are all doing that too, PO or PSO, we just muck in. Failing IT systems and waiting days to get IT problems sorted. In addition some CRC staff are having to interview in public buildings or share a single interview room with multiple colleagues. 

The general public will not be aware of this at the moment but may object if they knew or not take little jimmy to the creche there! I would like to see a staff survey perhaps tied in with a service user survey to build a picture of exactly what is going on and then publish the findings. A comparison with criminal justice social work in Scotland would also be helpful to see if things are any better there. They have been unaffected as separate system and social work qualification is still required here! The loss of this professional and relevant qualification seemed to herald a decline and undermining of our role.

******
As has been observed on & by this blog for some time now, the 'reality of probation' is that probation as a noble profession has been assigned to history, it has been fatally wounded & profits for privateers are paramount. Individuals are stoically fighting to maintain a level of service provision that is meaningful, but at huge personal cost.

Grayling, his acolytes & those who eagerly collaborated in this vile social experiment should be prosecuted for gross negligence in public office. They have damaged or destroyed careers, charitable organisations & peoples' lives. They should be required to make recompense from their own deep pockets - pockets filled with public money &/or gratuities from private companies. They should be exposed as the charlatans & fraudsters they truly are. They should be ashamed, but sadly they are without capacity for shame, they are without conscience.

******
A well written and recognisable piece by the Probation Officer in the Guardian. It communicated on a number of levels including an emotional appeal. It would be interesting to see such articles appear in a wider cross section of the media, in particular the more right wing press, where I imagine that readership might be less aware of the plight of many public service workers and those members of the public (all of us) who lose out as a result. The account is one that might have been written by any number of public sector workers. Maybe more articles could be submitted with an ambition to find a wider audience?

******
It was a good article, and I identified with much of it. And we do need more of similar in different places. Maybe we need more articles by or on behalf of those receiving the 'services' and how they came to need them in the first place. And how we criminalise people at the drop of a hat, sometimes from an early age. A sustained campaign would be good. We can't rely on the Howard league to do it all for us. And I don't think the public would respond primarily to the plight of probation staff. I think we would come across as feeling more sorry for ourselves than for victims of crime and service users put together. Sadly I don't think that those in charge at present will want the awareness they will need in order to be able to find it in their hearts to change things. They are hard - hearted.

******
There never was a golden age. If you take out TR from this article, you have a description of probation in the years leading up to the split, not least the 70% of time spent in IT processing on substandard systems. Compared to the costs of imprisonment, sufficient funds have never been invested in rehabilitation – or the causes of crime: poor education, poverty, drugs, etc... Structurally unequal societies manufacture crime and discrimination. Frontline probation work, especially since the cognitive-behavioural revolution, has always been about dealing with generations of failing individuals who are part of the fallout of the wider social failings. There will always be crime, but, as the evidence shows, it prospers more where there is economic inequality and lots of law and order rhetoric.

******
I would like to know how frontline staff are going to cope when we are reduced by 40%? What tasks can we let go of in order that we can keep up with the incessant demands upon our time? We are running at full speed. Working Links seem to think that the answer is to get rid of the 'troublemakers' and assume that newly qualified staff will be putty in their hands. I can tell you now that the newly qualified staff I have spoken to are no push overs and they are as appalled by the destruction of the service as anyone else.

******
For me the PI was born in unfortunate circumstances but that aside the concept is one I support. Professional standards and values, the idea of a body that seeks to protect, enhance and promote the gem and integrity that is the Probation ideal needs supporting in my view. To fail to put fear, grievances. appreciable as they be, aside will I believe be to the detriment of Probation as a recognised profession.

******
I'm afraid they aren't going to get much support from us broken band of POs. Unfortunately we've nothing left to lose and we realise no one cares that we've been destroyed. It seems to me we just keep trying our best to do what we can of our job until we find a way out.

******
I believe that had the PI developed prior to TR it would have flourished. I don't see how it can maintain professional standards when it failed to speak out against privatisation of probation services.

******
Privatisation and profit was and remains a huge contention for me too, particularly in our work. The modus operandi as Chris Grayling stated at the time was, 'I don't want to pay for a service I want to pay for results.' He is a, 'here today gone tomorrow politician.' I think the PI were likely in an invidious position, power as we know can be abusive and executive power is no exception. 'Probation' in my view, a hundred or more years in its history, will be here tomorrow. That is where my mind's eye is and PI can develop as a champion for the cause if given a chance. If it fails then we look elsewhere I suggest. I just do not see a credible alternative at this juncture.

******
Exactly, whatever the PI may say now, it has remained deafeningly silent over TR, the methods of implementation and the damage wrought to professional practice as a result. I will never join; not in a million years.

******
Why did NAPO support PI's birth if it does as you say it spells it's own end. NAPO surely saw some shared aims. They can co - exist and co - operate I would argue.

******
Dunno, possibly an attempt to be seen to be supportive of the directive labelled 'TR' (after all probation has always evolved to accommodate political and legislative changes of direction), without fully appreciating the ramifications of doing so on this occasion. A bit more clear sighted focus might have helped - and stronger representation of what the Members were saying.The rush to 'cosy up' to the idea made many Members feel they were being sold out.

******
Here's the thing. I am knackered, I have been at it all bloody day, trying to keep my head above water, my clients well-served and the public safe. During my working day I deleted Lord knows how many emails forwarded on by my manager "FYI" containing a plethora of training opportunities. I don't know if the PI is a good or bad thing, (starting to think it's a good thing) but we are drowning here in a sea of crap IT, lack of accommodation for our clients, a weekly round of contributions to the leaving present for a redundant colleague, the trauma of the departure of the redundant colleague, the effort of getting other equally shat on agencies to step up to MAPPA. Hell, this feels like an add on I haven't the time to engage with.

******
Sounds like my day! The only thing that keeps me going is my lovely colleagues who have gone through this experience with me. Unfortunately they are becoming fewer and fewer and the replacements seem to just want a job not a beloved career I hate what Probation has become.

******
The PI had every opportunity to speak out against TR and the destruction of a previous award winning public service, it failed to do so and I will not join for free, let alone pay. And perhaps Helen Schofield, you may wish to note that CRCs also work with ex veterans and not just NPS, have you consulted CRCs to ask about there strategy for working with this group of vulnerable adults? You may also like to consider that many of the staff working in the CRCs across this country are indeed staff shafted by MoJ. They are the very same people who helped probation trusts meet their gold standard service and who were credited with good or outstanding performance until Grayling destroyed our Service. 

It's not the staff doing the daily job that has resulted in the failure of TR, it's the models of delivery having to be run on a shoe string because the MoJ couldn't get their figures right and greedy profiteers put money before the needs of people, something the Tory Government promotes. Shame on Grayling, shame on Tory and Lib Dem government and MPs, shame on the majority of Chiefs Officers of Probation Trusts, shame on other public sector workers and indeed the public for allowing this mess to happen. The world was warned but no one listened and now we all pay the price, the disaster unfolds and everyone is now gasping.

******
"The use of the three terms "probation, rehabilitation and resettlement" is very deliberate in the Probation Institute. Although we have retained the name "probation" in our title (it would be a travesty to lose it) we are very clear in our wish to include practitioners, managers and leaders right across all the organisations working in this field".

This statement sums up what the PI is. Not for probation, not for probation practitioners, and the bottom line not a "probation" institute. Yes we have called for a professional association for many years (a role Napo should have filled) but this is not it. I know nobody that's joined and I'm not surprised.

******
Here lies a the very real dilemma of the 'Duty Of Care' which many of those reading this Blog would have hoped/wanted from PI. However, I also accept it was never going to 'stand against' TR or pro-actively campaign to highlight its impact on our Staff/Communities/Working arrangements. Although, I do value it drawing the public to a number of recent damning Inspections. Rather, it seeks to salvage some of the remnants of Probations Essence, Rich Legacy, Identity and Professionalism. I too echo many of the sentiments shared above and feel that sense of powerlessness and shame neither, to have the words and or the voice to consistently 'Stand Up/By a Much Loved Public Service. Many of whom, still firmly believe 'Unification' is the only way forward. 

I acknowledge that the PI is working on the basis of 'Moving Forward' and that of 'letting go' of the past and needing to embrace/work with something that many are still fundamentally opposed too. That's where our thoughts, feelings, heart and voice remain in an altogether different place and that's where for me the dilemma remains. Sending best wishes to all our staff/Unions and PI as we all continue in altogether different and increasingly divergent ways to try to make sense of TR. Also to ALL those staff we have and continue to lose along the way.

******
The government like to blame the use of psychoactive drugs for all the ills of today's penal system. But that's just spin. They certainly impact on daily life in prisons, but staff shortages and the impact those shortages have on daily routine and facilities for prisoners is certainly a far greater driver for the growth of violence and disturbances in prisons then drugs. There are far too many people in prison in the first place, and increasingly it's becoming a place to house those with mental health problems as mental health services in the community continue to be cut back. The number of people walking the landings with serious mental health problems is a far more dangerous concern then psychoactive drugs.

******
I agree, it's not the drugs, as the truism goes, it's the economy, stupid. The MoJ are going to provide a cash injection of 14m. In the last five years Noms have inflicted cuts of £1bn and the cuts to the public sector prisons were £334m. And they did it through fraudulent benchmarking which was the cover story for making the cuts. The reduction in prison officers and in particular the loss of experienced staff is what has plunged prisons into crisis. It was said at the time that cuts would be dangerous to health & safety - the death and harm statistics, neglect of the mentally-ill, are now bearing out those predictions.

******
Another knee jerk reaction? Problem solving courts would only work if all the relevant services are in place and can be accessed quickly! With offenders waiting months for counselling and scarce resources this will only flag up the deficiencies. What we need are better resourced services and more time with offenders. Magistrates are already sentencing without PSR's in many cases! I could do so much more to support my caseload and still try to make some time to take vulnerable offenders to appointments they may otherwise often miss or advocate on their behalf regarding housing or mental health services, but I am overstretched and this will only get worse with further cuts as part of so called transforming rehabilitation.

******
Article from the Howard League doing the rounds. The private companies whinging that they were misled and now they are losing money! Hey folks, this is not a game of monopoly. You gambled and were prepared to risk public safety for profit and now you are throwing your dummy out of the cot because MoJ is refusing to let you get away with it. End the contracts then and hand the keys back and do everyone a favour. Get on with what you do best. Selling brie, shoes or dodgy dealings in Saudi Arabia are much better suited to you than public protection. Stick with what you know and let the real professionals get back to work.

******
I work as custody probation officer in a prison and whilst am extremely busy as we all are, I will say that OMU across the disciplines are extremely stretched. Senior Prison officers who are supposed to be managing offenders sentences are always tasked out on the wings dealing with self harming, assaults on staff and offender on offender assaults, escorts to hospitals and covering staff shortages within the regime due to extreme staff shortages. This is not what they signed up too and in turn leaves administration staff to pick up work in their absence. Unfortunately, admin staff are briefed to request email as they won't know who they are talking to. If OM'S were able to get in with their contracted role, that line if communication would be possible and negate need for email request. 

As custody probation officer, I am in contact with all OM'S in community on my caseload so all know who to contact and deal with issues as they arise. That is because, although I am extremely busy, I am in the fortunate position to be on hand to deal with issues as they arise. The government led benchmarking exercise and fair and sustainable initiative was unrealistic and like TR and TTG has left absolute chaos within each establishment. Please don't think that requests via email are prisons being awkward but more a case of no resources. Prisons as are probation are in a right mess at the moment.

******
I was surprised to read the FT article yesterday, especially as it wasn't on the back of any particular event or incident. It was more the providers whinging, it was a straight forward accusation, the government misled us and sold us a pup. I expected more to be said in today's more 'lowbrow' press, but not a mention. So why yesterday and why the FT?
I have no idea really, but it leads to a lot of head scratching and pondering. It could be perhaps that the providers (especially with the Working Links saga posted above), that maybe the providers are arguing both ends, to create a space where they can simply step away from the contract with minimal penalty, or better still, have the government take the contracts back? I get the feeling that TR is being spoken about very seriously in quiet little rooms in Whitehall at the moment, and not just on this blog.

******
Probation in London has always been particular challenge to run even when it was being done by people who more or less knew what they were doing. It continues to have a transient offender population, higher risk offenders, lot's of prisons, and suffers staff retention problems that require you to constantly recruit. It's a special case just as policing is a special case in the capital and needs careful handling. LondonCRC is now a very unattractive and hazardous place to work with no light at the end of the tunnel and incentives to go the extra mile. 

I have not met one member of staff who can honestly say they wouldn't jump ship if they could get the same money elsewhere. MTCnovo and those they have appointed to run LCRC are a bad joke. The former senior managers all got their enhanced voluntary redundancies and some of them are now showing up cashing in on bits of work and clearing off again. But the rest of us are saddled with a ridiculous bunch of probation amateurs consisting of prison service senior job hoppers and assorted opportunists who seem to pop up when there's a job going and jump off the moving train shortly before it crashes. We didn't choose to work for who now blame us for the failure of their ridiculous untested operating model that we all told them wouldn't work. Unfortunately no one imagined it could get this bad.

TR Week One

Some people are hoping the 2nd week of TR is better than the 1st. I don't. I hope it's still a pile of crap and that that Delius is still down - this gives us ammo to fight our cause.

********
I very much doubt that is going to be the case. If you look at how much you FAILED to get done in the first week due to your excessive caseload, it stands to reason that this is going to double next week!!

I'm dreading Monday, but at the same time have a perverse sense of anticipation when I fail to get done twice as much then go to my MM and say 'don't say you weren't warned'.

********
A very stressful first week - Delius issues, unable to take cases back to court because those who know it all seem to have forgotten that the Unpaid work staff (CRC) need access to do our job - hence deleted the most important part on the system, so spent most of the week just swearing. Left work stressed, went home and cried - how did it all come to this. In my opinion it feels like the Unions only started kicking butt when the Probation side came into it, CP has always been the poor relation and I cannot see any improvement - I actually felt suicidal this weekend, I need a job, but don't know if my health can take anymore of this stress!

********
I hope you don't mind me saying but please don't suffer in silence. We can all do something about it. Speak to your manager, colleague, friend or see the Doctor. Take some time off work. Nothing wrong with looking after yourself. I appreciates it's difficult but more so if you think you are alone. Trust me you are not alone. We are all struggling but very important that we support each other during these difficult times. we are all with you my friend.

********
There was a strange surge of evangelical fervour towards the end of last week, with a series of new appointments and shiny suits singing the praises of the CRC. Colleagues seem determined to make something work for their clients, despite the almighty fuck-up that this split has generated. Admin staff are on their knees. As always there are those collaborators eager to pocket extra cash and work extra hours/days on offer, but I guess we have to accept they are making a choice. Not everyone is against TR, and many don't give a crap either way - not if there's a few quid on offer.

I am also dreading next week, and the week after, and the week after that, etc. Pay me off and let some new eager body fill my chair before I'm found lifelessly slumped over my keyboard.

********
I am trying to find a place in my mind where this does not matter as much, but I can't. I am trying to rationalise this in terms of just turn up and do what you have to do, just do your job... because that is what I get paid to do. Sadly, no-one seems able to tell me what my job is any more. 

I am so affected by the changes but also by working within such a stressed team with one colleague swearing all the time, another just shouting and railing against the injustice of this. It just dreadful for us all. Part of who I am is to try to help others and I am becoming worn out because colleagues need me (including a very stressed manager) and I need them - this takes all of our energy, there is so little left to give clients however hard we are trying.

I took some time off to try to recharge my batteries but now just feel fearful of returning. I have never told a client to "pull yourself together" but am trying this one on myself now! This was so much more than a job it was a wonderful vocation and it has been just destroyed. Sorry for moaning but it has helped me to just say this here where I cannot be accused of bringing my employer into disrepute... So let's gather ourselves and try to have have a good week!!

*******
I refuse to 'gather myself to try to have good week'. It is as it is.......awful!!!!!!
I will do what I can do without ruining my health or promoting an unrealistic view of what can be done.

*******
This is a summary of my week in IT hell.

nDelius - as well as the 72 clicks to get the right team, my Officer Diary is blank. I can only assume this is because my caseload is listed under my new IOM role and my contacts are entered using my new IOM role. However, the offender manager (hate that term) is me under my old OMU role. Therefore, the alerts that I have set as reminders are not showing in my Officer Diary and I do not have the facility to check the Officer Diary for my old OMU role as I no longer exist under that team on nDelius! I use my Officer Diary as a prompting system. I definitely set a couple of reminders on there Weds but they are not showing and I cannot for the life of me remember what they were! What if they were to do with Child Protection or an urgent action to do the following morning that if it wasn't done would compromise the safety of someone? Re the offender manager bit, apparently this is not something IT can sort out (!!) so it is down to our Administrator (who looks after 16 of us!) to reallocate them all individually!

Lost yet? It continues....

Oasys. I wasn't changed over to IOM and during the TR changes, all allocated officer details were lost anyway so, even though I had been spot on at doing my data cleansing the other week (with which we were more or less threatened with disciplinary action if it wasn't done), my task manager and caseload is now blank and I have to find all my people AGAIN and assign them to me AGAIN. I did one earlier but it went through to a colleague who left our area months ago and refused to give me access until she decided! (I definitely clicked on my own name!). Eventually, IT sorted it (after our godsend administrator did).

Reports on current cases (again apology for the terminology). As a CRC PO I am no longer worthy (in Grayling's eyes) to prepare their PSR if they re-offend. I CAN however, (and am expected to), prepare a progress report and send that to the PSR author who will incorporate it into their report.

UPW and Programmes staff haven't been able to input/access information. This could especially cause problems with BBR/IDAP where the guys go home to their victims. They could share some information to their NPS OM which the OM records but Programmes team don't see as they can't access the records as they are in CRC. Programmes go into group, mention something that winds him the hell up and he goes home and assaults his partner!

You seriously couldn't fucking make this up. As I am sure you are all experiencing, this is the tip of the iceberg. Yes, I feel slightly better now I have ranted!

*********

A police officer from the Public Protection Unit in my area tried to email some info about a sex offender to one of my colleagues this week but the email was blocked because it 'contained profanities'. Brilliant.

*********
I'm in IOM too. I"m finding it most frustrating that as I have the PI people I can no longer officially go to their monthly Crown Court review hearings and speak, I have to be babysat by my NPS colleague. The clients hate it and the Judges can't understand it. Saving money? 2 PO's instead of 1????

********
Progress report! Not heard of that one yet & as for the officer diary - not as long as I have a hole in my bottom will that be getting done !!!! If someone wants to know where I am or what I'm doing - walk to my desk & have a look !!! DID YOU GET THAT - NOMS, MOJ, CIA, GSI, CI5 & B&Q - no f*cking chance !!!!

********
Also, have we all noticed that sect 9a and sect 9b Burglaries under the Theft Act 1968 appear on the schedule 15 offence list - MAPPA 1? Kiss goodbye to my caseload then - hope you can take the strain of those few extra cases nationwide NPS!!!

********
NPS are having burglary with intent to cause Criminal Damage and burglary with intent to cause GBH. Trouble is, you can't tell from looking at pre-cons as these come under the sections of the act mentioned above but so do other, non-mappa offences.

**********
Yep. Trouble is there was no way of knowing for sure who was mappa and who was not in terms of splitting the caseload so we just had to get on with it best we could. Hopefully it will be clearer for new cases coming through the courts (hopefully!!!).

*********
It didn't help that the Delius sub codes weren't always put on correctly. I just read through the deps and removed the MAPPA flags if I disagreed.

********

I had to re-allocate cases back to OM because offence was wrong on Delius...

Prisons Special

Another day, another 'special' and for this on prisons, I'm grateful to a reader for sending me the following very interesting internal Noms document. It shows how policy continues to be written 'on the hoof' and use up a considerable amount of fag packets :- 

From:              Colin Allars, Director of Probation

 & Phil Copple, Director of Public Sector Prisons

To:                  Probation Trust Chief Executives

                        Probation Trust Chairs

                        CRC Chief Executives

                        NPS Deputy Directors         

CC:                 NEMC

Governing Governors

                        DDCs

                        Gordon Davison

                        Amy Rees

Senior Community Managers

Sophie Otter 

           

Date:               14/03/14

Re: THE ROLE OF PROBATION STAFF IN PUBLIC SECTOR PRISONS

1. We intend to improve offender management in custody to ensure that it is at the heart of managing offenders and is core to our service delivery. The changes necessary to make these improvements will impact upon the role of seconded probation staff in public sector prisons. We are using this opportunity to consider the role of probation in custody to ensure that the professional skills and expertise that Probation Officers have are used to the best advantage for the whole of NOMS. This note introduces the new role for probation staff in custody and describes how we will introduce and manage this change.

2. This change is occurring in the context of Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms and the OM Change Programme. TR highlights the importance of OM in custody, not just in the final, resettlement stages of an offender’s custodial sentence; but throughout an offender’s journey. We are therefore looking to support prisons to deliver continuous improvement in offender management. Probation staff have a critical role to play in this process. We are therefore introducing changes and enhancements to the role of probation staff working in prisons, as well as a different complement of those staff. Building on and further developing the vital role probation already play, this new probation complement in custody will strengthen and support the role Prison Service Operational Band 4s play as Offender Supervisors.

3. The purpose of the new role of probation in prison will be to provide professional expertise in risk assessment and case management. The role will comprise:

(i) quality assuring the delivery of the offender management model in custody;
(ii) directly supporting Offender Supervisors by providing regular advice and guidance; and,
(iii) overseeing and directing all high risk cases managed by Offender Supervisors.

4. In this way, Probation Officers will be more able to influence and contribute to the delivery of offender management in prisons, supporting Offender Supervisors to increase their skills and professionalism in providing OM, whatever their current level of experience. Critically, Probation Officers’ expertise in risk assessment and management will help to drive up and maintain standards in this area and give a level of assurance that prisons are delivering good quality offender management. Further, Offender Supervisors will have increased confidence in the critical decisions they make in overseeing the progression of offenders through the custodial phase of their sentences.

5. A detailed role description will be provided soon as part of future communications about this change.

6. The new role for probation staff working in prisons, which has been developed in close consultation with NOMS Offender Management and Public Protection Group (OMPPG), TR colleagues and Probation professionals, requires the skills and experience that qualified Probation Officers possess. Accordingly, in the longer term, there will not be a role for Probation Service Officers (PSOs) in the new arrangements.

7. The transition from current arrangements to the new model will take place over 18 months to two years, and will be phased carefully to minimise the impact on both staff and the work of Offender Management Units. This will ensure the smooth transition necessary for operational continuity both in prisons and in the community. It will also enable the staff affected, particularly the PSOs, to be properly consulted, via their line managers, about their futures and supported into new roles. There will be no compulsory redundancies. Further details of the implementation strategy will be provided in due course, including detailed information on the opportunities available to PSOs currently working in prisons. These posts, depending on the area, may include roles in delivering offending behaviour programmes in prisons, other roles within NPS and potentially conversion into Prison Officers.

8. As many of you will be aware, Public Sector Prisons Benchmarking programme has introduced a model of Offender Management in most prisons (male local prisons and male training prisons) in which offender supervision will be exclusively delivered by Operational Band 4 prison officers. In designing this model, the need for professional, qualified Probation expertise was recognised. The Probation resource required to deliver the new model will be determined through an allocation tool which calculates the required complement of Probation Officers based on the ‘turnover’ of prisoners and risk of serious harm profile of the offenders in the prison. Overall, this will require an increase in the complement of qualified Probation Officers working in prisons. We will work with the leadership of the National Probation Service to determine how this increase should be met. Probation Officers currently working within OMUs in prisons can expect to move into the new roles without any matching or other process.

9. For open prisons the arrangements within OMUs will be slightly different; offender supervision will be a shared task between Prison Officer Band 4 and qualified Probation Officers. Prison Officers will provide offender supervision for the cases that will be managed by Community Rehabilitation Companies on release and Probation Officers will act as Offender Supervisors to NPS cases. There are wider changes to open prisons as a result of an MOJ review of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) and these have been communicated separately.

10. To ensure the effective management, supervision and professional development of Probation Officers working in prison, the following arrangements will also be made:
First, to ensure their professional skills are kept up to date and their development maintained, the expectation will be that Probation staff working in prison will be posted for a limited period (details are still to be confirmed, but no more than 3 years).
They will be managed and supervised by Senior Probation Officers (SPOs) who will be based in the new NPS Divisions. We will work with the National Probation Service to identify any necessary adjustments in the SPO resource assigned to support Probation staff working in prisons.

11. On 1st June 2014 all Probation staff then working on secondment in prisons will transfer to the National Probation Service but will continue to work and deliver services as per current arrangements. More detail on the timing of these changes will be provided in due course and made available for consultation with staff and Trade Unions.

12. The changes outlined in this paper will add to the already fast-moving pace of change for the Probation Service and we acknowledge that this will feel like an additional pressure. However, the changes outlined are will produce a much clearer and focused role for probation staff in prisons. This will ultimately result in higher standards of Offender Management which will reduce reoffending and help to protect the public which, we are confident, will make these changes worthwhile. 

COLIN ALLARS & PHIL COPPLE

It's great to see how Grayling has been forced onto the back foot over the prisoner 'book ban' policy. It's really captured the public attention with absolutely acres of bad publicity and even a Number 10 petition started by Change.org. This is what Erwin James has to say on the subject:-

In the past few months the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has been rapidly diminishing the regime for people in prison. Last year he ordered all new prisoners back into prison uniform, then he stopped prisoners having Christmas presents sent in from their families. He has meddled with the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme so that prisoners who want to achieve the “enhanced” level of imprisonment – i.e. an extra visit a month, a better cell, a bit more money to spend from their private cash – have to do “over and above” just being well behaved. (A particularly niggardly move as he knows full well that so called “purposeful activity” in our prisons is becoming as elusive as the evidence that his other big idea, “Payment by Results” will actually work.)

More recently he has decided to restrict ROTL – Release on Temporary Licence – because of several high profile failures – yet last year there were almost half a million successful releases from prison on temporary licence. Nastiest of all of Grayling’s interference with the running of prisons however is his decision to ban prisoners from having books sent in and – incredibly – writing materials. These moves apparently are supposed to somehow magically “Transform Rehabilitation” and lead to a reduction in reoffending – yet a more illogical approach to the problem of recidivism would be hard to find.

This week he admitted that the system he presides over was “very flawed” and that the consistently high reoffending figures for released prisoners (costing the economy between £9bn and 13bn a year according to the office for national statistics) – was a “crazy situation.” Mr Grayling talks about “rehabilitation” on the one hand and yet treats people in prison like his own personal political pawns on the other. The fact is, it is the Justice Secretary’s rhetoric that is “crazy” and his determination to involve himself in the decisions which dictate the quality in the minutiae of prison landing life which is “very flawed.”

Commenting on Grayling’s decision to ban books being sent to prisoners Frances Crook, the Director of the Howard League for Penal Reform said: “Over the last year, because of shrinking prison budgets, staff cuts and increasing numbers, prisoners have been spending even longer in their cells without access to facilities such as libraries. It is common for prisoners to spend 20 hours a day in their cells during the week. At weekends they can be cooped up from Friday lunchtime until Monday morning. Conditions have deteriorated so much in recent months that this has become a major concern.

“Being able to read a book is a lifeline and a way of nourishing the mind. As families and friends are now forbidden from sending basic items into prison, prisoners are sitting in stinking cells, wearing dirty clothes, with nothing to do and not even a book to read. We urge the government [i.e Mr Grayling] to reconsider this draconian measure.”

If he really has the interests of future potential victims of people coming out of prison he really should reconsider all of the above.

Grayling is so rattled he rushed out a feeble press release yesterday in response to the Change.org petition:-

I saw your comments about the availability of books in prisons yesterday and am writing to correct some of the misleading reports that have been around.

There has been no ban on the availability of books in prison, and the change of policy has been to ensure that we have consistency across the prison estate. It was never the case that prisoners were simply allowed unlimited parcels - books or otherwise.

The restrictions on access to parcels by prisoners are necessary because of the need to limit the ability of offenders to get hold of drugs and contraband. The logistics of a prison estate with 85,000 people would make it impossible to check in detail every parcel sent in, and so rights of access to parcels are, and have always been, limited.

Prisoners have always enjoyed and continue to enjoy full rights of access to all the titles available through the local public library service, which operates a full service in all of our prisons. If titles are not available there and then, they can be ordered as normal.

In addition, prisoners can purchase individual items through the prison shop if they wish to do so. These can be ordered under controlled arrangements. Each prisoner is allowed up to twelve titles in their cells at any one time, inclusive of those borrowed from the library.

I’m sure that you would agree that we need to ensure that all prisoners have access to books, and also support to help them learn to read if necessary – and that is what happens. Equally, I am sure that you would wish us to ensure that we maintain proper security to prevent the smuggling of drugs, pornography and extremist materials – and that is why we maintain a tight limit on the right of prisoners to receive parcels.

With best wishes

Chris Grayling

PS - Just spotted this:-

More problems for Grayling are looming. This from the F.T. (paywall)

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, is under mounting pressure to act over fears that thousands of prisoners will bring compensation claims for being held beyond their minimum sentence. Ministers face the prospect of a torrent of claims over a backlog of prisoners being held for months and even years after completion of their minimum term. One prisoner in Erlestoke prison in Wiltshire, who was given a minimum sentence of seven months, has now spent seven years behind bars.

RIP OM Part 1

I've got a funny feeling that the TR omishambles is going to mirror the weather over the coming weeks. In these circumstances readers are advised to fasten their seat belts and prepare for a very bumpy ride indeed. 

Up until now most of the attention has focused on how the TR omnishambles will affect probation in the community, but what about seconded colleagues in prison? Well, I've become aware of the contents of a very interesting set of documents concerning what those bright young things down at MoJ HQ have planned, and I thought I'd share them with you. I think most would agree that the lack of probation expertise at the top is definitely beginning to show.

This is the first then and apologies for the length, but this is important stuff and will require some careful and critical consideration. I'll hold back from making comment at this stage, but readers are strongly invited to comment. 

Management of cases during the custodial period

At the OMCP Board of 2 September 2013, CL presented a paper (attached in full at Annex A) that argued that offender management responsibility for MAPPA and high risk cases should be transferred from community-based OMs (the current OM Model), to seconded probation officers in custody. This proposal was in line with the original plan of the Specifications, Benchmarking and Costing teams.

The paper argued that the benefits of this change would include:

• answering criticisms of HM Inspectorates of Probation and Prisons of the present ‘end to end’ model, which state that the original goal of case continuity has never been realised;
• allowing the OM in custody to build up a professional relationship with their offender cohorts face to face, thus improving the offender experience of Offender Management;
• enabling the OM in custody to drive the sentence plan more effectively; and
• ensuring prisoners’ sentences are not left poorly managed during the core custodial period because OMs must prioritise their community caseload. 

The paper acknowledged that there were also risks and potential drawbacks to this approach, but that these were outweighed by the benefits. The Board discussion explored some of these risks and asked for further detail about them. The Board also requested further information regarding cost and resource.

Specifically, the Board raised the following queries:

• Further information on the costs of the proposal;
• A concern that probation staff had no line management responsibility in prisons could mean that relevant intelligence sharing in prison may not be fully integrated, and as a consequence critical information is not used to inform risk and case management;
• The consequence of not having a single Offender Manager (OM) throughout a whole sentence is there is a potential impact on consistency and continuity of management;
• a further assessment of the impact on community-facing agencies, particularly MAPPA;
• the impact on the experience of the offender should be examined further; and
• the impact of the proposal on the TTG process for short sentence NPS cases should be further explained. 

Following this discussion, I have carried out a round of consultation in order to bottom out these issues. Consultees have included:

• West Midlands Offender Management Regional Group
• London Probation Trust (Resettlement & SFO Manager, and all prison-facing SPOs)
• Head of Offender Management, HMP Chelmsford
• HM Inspectorate of Probation
• HMP Inspectorate of Prisons
• Directorate of Probation and Contracted Services
• Transforming Rehabilitation Programme Team (including the OM design, ‘Through the Gate’, Public Probation, and costs leads
• Business Development Group, NOMS
• MAPP and Public Protection Team, OMPPG
• HMPS Public Protection Lead, South Central Region

This paper discusses each of the queries in turn.

Costs
     
The activity around the management of a case during custody does not increase much in this option against that which is currently required. Based on the core principles of the ASPIRE model (Assess, Sentence Plan, Implement, Review, Evaluate), the OM, wherever they are based, will deliver the same role. Rather, some of current activity will transfer from the community to the custodial setting. The key activity to transfer would be the completion of assessment and planning (OASys). Other key tasks relating to the oversight and directing of a sentence are already captured within the emerging benchmark for the custody-based probation role and do not, therefore, represent uncosted pressures.

The tasks that will remain with the community probation officer and not transfer are still to be confirmed, but an example is that the community probation officer might still be invited to sentence planning meetings alongside both the key custodial staff, to keep up to date with the case, meaning that three staff could be involved in a task that previously required only two. Currently, some community Offender Managers travel into the prison to interview offenders and attend sentence planning meetings, as opposed to using video links). This practice of physically attending the prison will not be necessary under the proposed option and, therefore, could cancel out the resource impact of having a third person involved in sentence planning meetings. However, if this aspect does develop into a significant resource gap that cannot be bridged, some of the desirable but not essential elements of best practice could be covered as guidance of best practice, as opposed to mandatory actions.

So, whilst this proposal does impact on current cost model assumptions with regard to activity distribution, there is no major tangible change in overall offender manager resource, for the following reasons:

• the roles of Offender Supervisor, custody-based probation officer and community probation officer will be clearly defined to avoid any unnecessary duplication or overlap (see Annex B for a breakdown of the key roles during the custodial period);
• the responsibilities of custody-based probation staff in relation to overseeing and driving the NPS cohort cases are already built into the benchmarking role definition and assumptions and
• the resource for completing assessment and planning for Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection (IPP) cases currently sits with the community. However, this is the same level of resource that would be required by the custody probation officer to do the same task 

It should be noted that, whilst we do not anticipate any significant increase in resource requirements across the business as a result of these proposed changes, there remain current gaps in provision, which the new model would need to deal with. OASys reviews and updated sentence plans are required throughout the custodial period for those managed by community probation, but these are not consistently delivered in practice for all cases. We will work with the Public Probation Directorate to ensure that sufficient resource is applied appropriately and that this critical work is therefore deliverable in future, whichever model is selected.

Probation staff influence in prisons

As highlighted above, there is a concern that probation staff have no line management responsibility within the prison which could affect the sharing of intelligence. If this were the case, it would impact on the quality of offender management.

It is envisaged that the custody-based probation officer, acting as OM for retained public cases, will be working closely and directly with a designated Offender Supervisor, thus improving the relationships and, therefore, the ability to effectively manage these cases. This working relationship is already replicated in many parts of the estate, although with seconded probation officers acting as Offender Supervisors.

With regard to the OM influence in prisons, it is the existing model that presents more difficulty: if the OM were based in the prison, there would be a far greater prospect of generating good working relationships and developing strong protocols around sharing of information and working towards common goals. The proposed new approach therefore actually improves the potential for the OM to drive the case and engage productively with prison colleagues.

Impact on continuity of not having a single OM throughout sentence

The intention of the original OM Model was to have a single OM for the duration of a sentence in order to provide continuity and stability of case management. However, existing practice has failed to deliver this aspiration. HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Probation have confirmed that in over 40% of cases, the Offender Manager has changed during the custodial period, and most often at the critical pre-release stage of the custodial period. This point aside, even where an offender has had a single OM throughout custody, the OM has usually proved unable to drive the sentence and to engage prison-based staff in offender management during this time. The opportunity to develop a good working relationship with the offender has proved limited, as OMs have not usually been able to meet the offender due to geographical and time constraints. Video conferencing has somewhat mitigated this effect, but not enough to allow the original intention to be fulfilled. Further, where the OM has visited, the prison regime impact on offender availability (relative low priority given to offender management meetings) has led to a number of meetings cancelled on the day, making the visit wasted. These conclusions have been a consistent finding of HMIP reports, further supported by a forthcoming National Audit Office report into the management of indeterminate sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) cases.

It is true that the proposed option will mean the OM will change each time a prisoner transfers to another prison. For the most challenging and disruptive prisoners, this could imply several changes of OM. However, the norm (assuming the prison re-alignment work delivers its anticipated benefits) is likely to involve fewer transfers than currently, as there will be a clear purpose for each prison transfer, making it easier for staff to plan a logical transfer based on an individual’s sentence length and identified risks/needs. A critical aspect to get right, to make either approach work, is to improve the quality of handover. To this end, we have worked closely with the benchmarking team, to ensure the emerging seconded probation role is adequately resourced for such handovers to occur on prison transfer. The new OASys platform means assessments are more readily available immediately to the staff in the receiving prison, which will aid effective handovers. Further, the pre-release handover event is a key aspect of the ‘Through the Gate’ work stream of the Rehabilitation Programme. For the NPS and CRC managed cases, there is a costed requirement for this activity, which now needs appropriate guidance drafted and delivered by the Offender Management Change programme (OMCP) to ensure the handover of a case is not detrimental to the overall aims of the sentence. This task is part of our wider practice guidance plans.

Impact on community facing agencies and processes, particularly MAPPA

Fundamental to effective offender management is good quality involvement in and input to MAPPA and other public protection processes. Currently, a prison can struggle to obtain information in relation to MAPPA until nearer the end of a sentence. Even at that stage, there are too many examples where a MAPPA level is known, but not shared with the prison.

Further, often prisons as a whole don’t understand enough about the different levels of MAPPA, and the custody-based probation officer role could improve this significantly. Moving prisons away from relating public protection just to escape risk is an important developmental need for NOMS.

By having much more significant and present probation officer involvement throughout a custodial sentence, their accumulated knowledge of the offender would become invaluable when considering risk management arrangements for release. Further, the prison would be much more aware of the likely MAPPA level and risk management requirements before the final part of the sentence.

As described earlier, the proposed model does not negate the need for a designated community probation officer (CPO). The CPO would continue to have critical public protection responsibilities, including in relation to MAPPA and victims. The proposed option, as long as it is appropriately resourced, should not therefore pose a threat to these responsibilities. In fact, it potentially enhances them, as increased knowledge about the offender can translate into a more effective risk management plan developed between the community and custody probation officers. As noted by the Board, it is important that the roles and responsibilities of each of these officers are clearly outlined, and Annex B seeks to provide a detailed breakdown of those responsibilities in relation to MAPPA and other critical tasks.

Currently, the responsibility for opening a ViSOR record for violent offenders at MAPPA Levels 2 and 3 (Category 2) sits with the community Offender Manager, as lead worker. This means that often, the prison cannot record anything in ViSOR during the core part of the custodial period, as the record is not opened until the pre-release stage of sentence. By having the lead worker for these cases based in the prison, it means the ViSOR record can often be opened earlier, allowing the prison to start to record information, potentially as soon as custody commences. This would bring practice into line with what is currently achieved with Category 1 (sex offenders) MAPPA cases (all Levels), where the police are the lead workers and open the ViSOR record pre-custody.

At around 8 months pre-release, the community Offender Manager completes a screening, making a recommendation as to which MAPPA level an offender is to be managed at in the community, for approval by a MAPPA Board if level 2 or 3 is recommended. As the custody based probation officer will have had more engagement in the case during the custodial period (notwithstanding prison transfers), they would be best placed to make this recommendation of MAPPA level and present to the initial MAPPA Board. In order to ensure an effective handover, it is envisaged that the community probation officer would have sight of the screening and recommendation and also attend that initial MAPPA meeting. After this initial meeting, the formal handover of responsibilities would commence, and the community probation officer, as the lead worker, would attend all future MAPPA meetings, even if the offender was still in custody at the time of those further meetings.

The offender’s experience of OM

The new model should improve the OM experience of the offender. One of the more common complaints by prisoners is the lack of engagement with, or sight of, their OMs, until near, or even on, release. This perception suggests that currently, the continuity of individuals acting as OM has no real bearing on the offender’s experience of offender management, notwithstanding some examples of good practice. By contrast, under the proposed model, the OM, appropriately resourced, would be a visible figure, beyond a once annual meeting, seen to be proactively managing and, importantly, involved in the offender’s sentence.

Whilst the proposed option has the potential for some confusion, not least through transfer between prisons and the changes to OMs and Supervisors that would go along with this, if the model and practice (including handovers) were implemented well, this need not be a significant issue. Indeed, the developing seconded probation role has some allocated time already for familiarisation with new cases, including transfers, representing the opportunity to deliver a sound handover of cases between prisons. Further, OMCP would need to ensure that communications to offenders about the offender management model and changes was strong.

Taking into account the fact that Offender Supervisors are already changed at each transfer, there is some experience operationally as to how best to manage these changes. Processes on transfer must be handled as well as possible through policy and guidance, based on good practice, and this is a task for the OM Change Programme to deliver against.

Through the Gate Model for short sentence NPS cases

An issue was raised around the impact of the proposed approach on the NPS management of short sentence (under 12 months) cases. The intention for all cases is to handover at 6 months pre-release (or 8 months in MAPPA cases), or as long as possible before release, depending on length of sentence. Therefore, for short sentenced NPS-managed prisoners, the community probation officer would be responsible for the case from the beginning of the sentence, because there would be a maximum (subject to added days) of 6 months to serve in any case.

Other Suggested Improvements

It will remain important that all relevant intelligence is passed on to community probation and so to organisations like MAPPA and SOCA where relevant. We have two suggestions for improving these links.

1) Offender Management Units (OMUs) in prisons often do not have a high enough profile and status and are, therefore, not often able to influence other departments within the prison to a sufficient extent. This issue is evidenced through the constant use of officer Offender Supervisors to plug gaps on wings or go on escorts. Further, the challenges of delivering effective offender management around the prison regime and routine are significant, and it is common that scheduled sentence planning review meetings are cancelled as a direct result of a lack of understanding and importance attached to the work of OMUs by the wider prison. In order to resolve this, a number of changes would need to be made. One of these might be to improve the links that probation staff in prison have up the line of command. This should be aimed for and achievable as probation staff in the new world are directly employed in the same way as prison staff. Improved links would have a positive impact on the passing of intelligence to the community setting.

2) The establishment of the new National Probation Service structure will make the custody-based probation officer a NOMS role, as opposed to an external provider role. It also provides an opportunity to consider how offender management performance is reviewed. One option we are keen to explore with others is the introduction of a probation performance co-ordinator role, sitting with the regional Deputy Directors of Probation (DDP). This role, possibly at SPO level, might have two main functions:

• Support offender management activity in prisons, providing support and data to establishment SMTs in relation to offender management performance and effectiveness, and which also links to the NPS reporting line and, ultimately, through to NEMC.
• Oversee and monitor offender management performance in prisons, escalating issues for bilateral consideration between DDCs and DDPs, if necessary.

Conclusion

Following further consideration, and consultation with representatives of a number of stakeholders, it is clear that the proposed approach is the right one, is deliverable and has the potential to deliver improvement in the practice of managing cases throughout custody and into the community.

Work towards effective outcomes starts at the beginning of a sentence and should continue throughout the custodial period, and then into the community. The Through the Gate period is a critical one to get right, but for longer term offenders the OMCP has a responsibility to ensure that effective offender management is also in operation during the core custodial period. This proposed approach to managing cases during custody, coupled with the proposed changes to the seconded probation officer role in prisons, represents an opportunity to make a genuine and lasting difference to the quality of offender management practice in prisons. This, in turn, could give the community probation officer (and the CRC case workers for non NPS cases) a strong base upon which to build.

During the custodial period for the NPS cases, we have been unable, in the lifetime of the Offender Management model, to consistently manage and drive a sentence. This proposed approach gives a clear way of ensuring there is active management throughout this period of a sentence and it is a change we should pursue. As colleagues have pointed out, following principled assent to the proposal, it is important that further detailed work on the respective roles is completed and communicated, so as to provide absolute clarity on who is responsible for which aspect of offender management.

With all that said, senior colleagues in the Prison Unit Cost Programme and the Public Sector Prisons Directorate have expressed concern at the timing of the proposed change, in parallel with all the other changes impacting on both prisons and probation under TRP. TRP is currently locking down designs and NOMS have already started developing the operating models to deliver it. Therefore, whilst this remains an important change for the medium term improvement of offender management, it might be pragmatic to allow the TRP and Benchmarking changes to be put in place and become operational before its implementation.

This paper, therefore, proposes that:

1. the Board agrees that the proposal to move responsibility for managing an offender’s case during the custodial period to the prison (Offender Supervisors for CRC cases, and seconded Probation Officers for NPS cases) should be pursued in support of improving offender management practice;
2. the Board agrees that OMCP will not look to implement this change immediately, but will agree an appropriate implementation timescale with prison colleagues and will present this to NEMC for agreement. 

GM