Latest From Napo 193

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

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

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

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

Same old, same old

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

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

OMiC dispute

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

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

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

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary

--oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier, Chief Probation Officer and Executive Director Women 

HM Prison and Probation Service 

12th August 2019 

Dear Sonia, 

Dispute re OMiC 

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

Lack of Consultation 

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

Broken assurances on staffing levels 

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

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

SPO workloads 

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

Change to agreement on the contracted out estate 

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

Concerns about the model 

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

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

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

No consultation on job losses 

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

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

Yours sincerely 

IAN LAWRENCE 

General Secretary

KATIE LOMAS 

National Chair

Dartmoor and Resettlement

Flagged-up by a reader yesterday and reported here in the Guardian, there are serious problems with resettlement in a far-flung part of the prison empire:-  

Dartmoor prisoners 'being released without proper preparation'

Hundreds of high-risk prisoners, many of them sex offenders, are being released each year from Dartmoor prison without proper preparation, in a “shocking and unacceptable” public protection failing identified by the chief inspector of prisons. Peter Clarke said more than 200 men had been released from one of Britain’s oldest prisons in the past 12 months, and an even higher number of releases was expected next year.

He said HMP Dartmoor, in Devon, did not have sufficient staff or resources to effectively prepare the men for release or provide sufficient support to minimise their risk of harm to the public. “This was a shocking and totally unacceptable situation, given the generally high-risk population being released from Dartmoor,” he said.

The prison, which opened in 1809 to house Napoleonic war prisoners, held 600 high-risk prisoners when it was inspected in August. More than 70% were convicted sex offenders and the remainder violent offenders serving long sentences. Dartmoor remains under threat of closure. Despite a pervasive damp in many cells and a curtailed regime because of staff shortages, the inspectors report that the men were “generally positive” about the amenities and staff-prisoner relationships.

The chief inspector said his most serious concern related to the preparation of inmates for release. He said that because Dartmoor was not a resettlement prison it did not have adequate resources to engage in pre-release preparations. The reviews of prisoners’ risk levels that did take place were often last-minute, and some high-risk prisoners the inspectors spoke to were anxious because they were unsure where they would live and did not know what arrangements had been made to manage them in the community. There was only very restricted access to sex-offender treatment programmes in the prison.

The chief inspector said: 

“We had significant concerns about the lack of clarity relating to the prison’s resettlement and risk-management responsibilities, and in particular its inability to carry out adequate pre-release planning for men being released from the prison. While we considered Dartmoor to be well led and making strides in some important areas, it was being hampered by confusion nationally about its role, doubts about its future and inadequate resources to do the job it was being asked to do. The solutions to many of the most significant concerns we raise in this report are not in the gift of the governor; the active support of HM Prison and Probation Service is needed.”

Michael Spurr, the HMPPS chief executive, said all high-risk offenders released from Dartmoor were supervised by the National Probation Service. “The vast majority are released to approved accommodation and all are seen by their probation officer on the first day of release to reinforce their licence conditions,” he said. “A review of risk management arrangements has taken place and a new senior probation officer is also already in post to oversee the management of higher-risk offenders.”

--oo00oo--

I'm surprised Michael Spurr decided to infer blame on a prison SPO and didn't make mention of the impending shake-up of how probation in prison will operate under OMIC, the Offender Management in Custody initiative. We've discussed this before and noted that Facebook is fast becoming the 'go-to' place for professional guidance and support. The issue is still of concern to many prison-based probation staff, as evidenced by this recent Facebook discussion:-

Can anyone point me in the direction of the near future plans for the probation officer role in prisons, please? I've been out of the system for a while. I appreciate there may be some regional variations. Thanks in advance.

Prison PO becomes the OM for NPS cases with community OM being allocated 10 months prior to release with exceptions (very high risk, public interest etc). If sentence is under 12 months community OM remains in place. Only PAROM 1 will be needed for parole as the current SPR L completed by OS will no longer be required. OM changes if case transfers prisons. CRC cases get allocated Prison OS as OM with all cases having key worker on wing (personal officer role currently).

Prison OS as OM will also hold NPS cases which are PSO suitable under the tiering tool...

Who does Parom 1, prison or community OM?

Looks like Prison OM but no idea how they will have local knowledge required of release area for risk management planning. IPPs and Lifers also need working out.

My understanding from the OMIC briefing day is that the community OM does the PAROM 1, but has to incorporate the views of the prison OM .... even if you disagree.

Maybe the community PO will do the resettlement bit as then it'll make sense?

I wish I knew for sure as it'll make the difference of how I construct my future as a Probation Officer.

The current plan is definitely that the community PO writes it. The OMIC model is a huge change and is going to completely restructure the service. It’s projected date is spring 2019, and much like TR, the message is it’s coming no matter what.

They’re starting an “impact study” from April as to where current probation staff live and how this corresponds to where the prisons are. No idea what they are going to do if some prisons have no one living within an hours commute like North Sea camp where they have had vacancies since the split. Spoke to a prison officer today who says they are so desperate for prison officers at some prisons down south they offer extra cash and hotels for people to work there for months on end. What a mess. OMIC ain’t gonna work without enough prison staff let alone probation officers.

It’s not just prison and probation either. The whole model also relies on PPCS and the parole board achieving really tight targets .... both of whom are also grossly understaffed. It will also need IT project to be fully implemented if it’s going to work, video conf etc will be key. We made the point that the infrastructure (IT/staff etc) was nowhere near ready... but it’s still being driven forward quickly.

Very true. They haven’t even got enough suitable interview rooms in prison or desk space. There’s a definite irony that we’re already rattling round offices in the community that are already too big for the number of staff. Think I need to try some blue sky thinking or whatever management call it.