Probation on the Phone

Covid -19 has dramatically changed the probation supervision landscape and here we have the results of some early research from the University of Cambridge Institute of Criminology and KSS CRC:-

Remote supervision: Getting the balance right

1.0 Executive Summary 

1.1 Background 

The sudden onset of Covid-19 has engendered significant policy and practice implications when it comes to delivering probation and allied criminal justice services, with new ’roadmaps’ and emergency delivery models being drawn-up in haste (HMPPS 2020; PBNI, 2020a). Though there have been some early reflections (from academics, commentators and third sector agencies), and even a national review of Exceptional Delivery Model arrangements in probation services, (HMIP 2020), the field has, as yet, been largely unexplored. The current study, therefore, has been conducted to look very directly at this matter, drawing on the remote operational delivery practices amongst case management staff working in three Community Rehabilitation Company divisions, run by Seetec. 

1.2 The current research 

This report sets out the findings of a research project examining probation supervision practice in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It explores case managers’ views of the benefits and limitations of different methods of remote communication, and the suitability for their continued usage in the post-pandemic future. The research sought to answer two key questions: 

1. What practice methods, skills and technologies are currently being used by case managers? 

2. What current practice measures do case managers experience as valuable, with the potential to be retained and developed in the future? 

1.3 Methodology 

The research comprised a mixed methods design, involving an online-survey with 79 case management staff, and 12 semi-structured interviews with survey participants interested in further participation. Interviews were conducted by telephone and video-conference between August and September 2020. Survey data was collected from July to September 2020. The qualitative data was analysed thematically. The quantitative data was explored using Excel. 

1.4 Findings 

Description of practice 

The pandemic has had a profound effect on practice, and has required probation staff to make a rapid shift to remote forms of supervision. When it comes to methods used, most common was the telephone call. Telephone calls enabled a wide range of supervision tasks to take place, with practitioners deeming them more suitable for routine reporting and unscheduled welfare checks, and least suitable for induction appointments. Text messages and emails were also common (the former, for quick and direct communication, the latter for passing on key health/employment documents) but had their problems in the form of data security breaches and the risk that information might be read by someone other than the intended recipient. Video-calls were the least common method, and were used principally for meetings with other professionals. 

The suitability of remote (telephone) supervision 

Though telephone supervision formed the larger part of remote supervision, its suitability was debated. It offered considerable flexibility to service users (e.g. for those with childcare responsibilities, work commitments, or physical health problems), but was not always felt to be inclusive (e.g. for those who had English as a second language, or who had hearing difficulties). When working with service users with drug and alcohol problems, who were homeless, or who were experiencing mental health issues, practitioners saw challenges as they were unable to do visual checks for safety and wellbeing. It caused problems when it came to assessing risk and, significantly, telephone supervision almost always felt unsuitable for cases involving child protection and domestic violence. 

Importantly, telephone supervision denied the engagement of other vital senses. Sight was significant; supervisors who could not see service users worried about missing vital information, but viewed video-calling as potentially a poor substitute for face-to-face work, due to there still being a virtual wall. But practitioners also valued their sense of smell as a means of gathering crucial information about the well-being of service users and talked about the importance of tone of voice in difficult telephone calls. 

Finally, though the flexibility of remote (telephone) supervision increased compliance, its less formal nature was said to risk complacency. Coming into the office signalled active compliance in a way that simply answering the phone did not. 

The professional relationship 

Remote supervision also posed a challenge to building and sustaining professional relationships with service users. Indeed, familiar processes of listening, being friendly, and being clear about the purposes, expectations and options of supervision brought emotional labour, an intrinsic aspect of probation work, into sharper focus. Some practitioners, not used to using a phone for work, found themselves accessible to service users in unfamiliar ways. Experiences of telephone supervision also overlapped with experiences of working from home. This added to the complexity of setting appropriate boundaries for professional relationships – it was not always possible to separate work time from home time. 

Inter-agency work 

Finally, though already common to frontline practice, the pandemic increased the use of video/telephone conferencing for inter-agency work. Some staff were positive about this, citing time saved by not attending in person, however others saw the challenges of supporting someone, especially a vulnerable someone, in a difficult virtual meeting.

1.5 Take home points 

1. Supervision cannot rely on telephone contact alone – Deprived of the opportunity to see, hear (and sometimes smell) properly, supervisors were not getting the full picture of service users and reciprocally, service users were not getting a full picture of them. Telephone supervision constrained practitioners’ ability to gather the information needed to make accurate risk assessments, and was not always sufficiently formal given the statutory nature of probation supervision. Remote supervision was also a difficult experience for vulnerable service users and those with complex needs. 

2. However, there is a place for telephone supervision – telephone supervision can work well in cases where staff and service user know each other well, where the service user’s circumstances are stable and where risk is assessed as low. It also benefits in terms of the expense and inconvenience of travelling to probation offices. In some cases, telephone supervision enables conversations and reflections that are more comfortable, genuine and purposeful than those that take place in the office. 

3. The importance of professional discretion – practitioners would like to continue with elements of remote supervision and would welcome an increase in professional discretion in this area. New guidance is needed to take account of these changes in working practices and professional boundaries, for example around use of work equipment, sharing of email addresses, security of data and recording of decisions about modes of contact. Increasing the scope for the use of professional discretion in this way also brings new support and training needs for staff. 

4. Thinking about video calls – The study supports the continued use of video calls for inter-agency meetings. Though staff had no experience of video supervision, many saw the value of it through offering the prospect of seeing (as well as hearing) service users and their immediate surroundings. A trial of video calling would enable practitioners to explore the benefits and limitations of this technology, assess its usefulness and contribute to developing the necessary protocols and practice guidance. 

5. Developing the use of internet resources for supervision – The study also points to the possibility of broadening structured supervision by drawing on online resources. Ability to use these resources was sometimes hampered by lack of smartphones (for practitioners), Wi-Fi issues in offices, security settings on work devices, and access issues for service users, but there was significant interest. Staff asked for more information about appropriate good-quality online resources, expressing enthusiasm for a resource library that could be used as part of individual supervision. 

6. Flexible working with greater use of remote supervision – ‘Working at home’ and ‘remote supervision’ are two different things which, in the context of the pandemic, overlap. Some of the objections to telephone supervision seemed really to be objections to working at home, for example the sense of intrusion into the practitioner’s home, with staff calling for remote working from the office. After the pandemic, it was hoped that the benefits of working from home might be maintained (including travelling less, staying late in the office less frequently, and managing their family responsibilities more easily), alongside the flexibility, when in the office, to have the option to use remote means of communication.

---///---

5.3 Getting the full picture 

Not being able to see people is a strong disadvantage of telephone calls. Practitioners (in the survey and in interview) were clear about the difficulties of having to work without being able to see the other person. They explained that communication was about spoken words, but also about body language; managing without body language meant that communication was harder and important messages were often missed. When practitioners work face-to-face they pick up on visual clues and on discrepancies between what someone is saying and how they are looking.

‘They are not in front of you so you can't gauge their body language… you can pick up a lot with their body language, in front of you, to gauge whether what they are saying is quite true or not - and on the phone that is quite difficult. It's easy for them to say on the phone, “oh yeah everything’s good, everything's fine, nothing is happening” whereas face-to-face you might pick up some other things that you're not too sure if that's actually the case’ (Nicola) 

‘conversation isn't just about what's being said, it's about how it's being said, your body language, are you being threatening, are you being open, you use gestures a lot to get your point across, so having a visual contact is preferable’ (Paul) 

Not being able to see people increased practitioners’ worry about missing information that was necessary for risk assessment and risk management. It was not possible to see if someone’s physical health or personal care had deteriorated. Speaking specifically of service users with substance use issues, Gemma said: 

‘You need to be able to see them often to verify what they are telling you, whether they’re using or not - because over the telephone you can’t see if there has been a dramatic weight loss or if their personal care standards have significantly dropped... being able to see them definitely helps with your assessment of how they are doing, how's their welfare, have they neglected themselves, have they relapsed, are they drinking more, are they under the influence? They could say “Oh I sound like this because I'm tired” but it could actually be because they have taken something.’

Over the telephone, it was not possible to be sure that someone was where they claimed to be, or to know whether other people (friends, family members or children) were listening into the call. It was harder for practitioners to take a curious and investigative approach if solely reliant on telephone contact. 

Few study participants had experience of using video calls as part of supervision. Many took the view that video calls offered potential benefits over voice calls; it would be possible to see whether someone looked well, it would be easier to understand where they were and if they were alone. However, video calling was still seen as a poor substitute for face-to-face work, and not just because the quality of video calls can be poor. 

‘Seeing someone through a screen rather than seeing them in person, there's still kind of a wall up against you because they could be putting on a whole different persona just because they know you could see them at that time..’ (Paul) 

Sight was not the only sense identified as important for probation work. Practitioners explained that using the telephone required very careful listening, which was demanding and tiring. Poor connections and background noise meant that people could be hard to hear. Practitioners also valued their sense of smell as a means of gathering important information about the well-being of service users and as a warning sign of increased problems with alcohol and drug use. 

‘You might be able to tell over the phone if they are under the influence, slurring their words and things like that, but some people are really good at hiding it. If they actually come into the office I can see, I can smell, so things like that really help.’ (Rebecca) ‘

'on the telephone they can present as sober, you can't smell their breath, you can't see their eyes’ (Andrew) 

Sara talked about having a ‘probation radar’ which enabled her to identify when someone was contemplating change or falling into trouble. Communicating remotely deprived her of the ability to read body language and to ‘sniff out’ shifts in motivation. Her probation radar did not work as well over the phone. 

5.4 The professional relationship 

Remote supervision posed a challenge to the process of building and sustaining a professional relationship. Few of the study participants would choose to start a period of supervision with telephone contact. Face-to-face sessions were the best way of getting to know someone, enabling both practitioners and service users to be able to put a face to a name. 

‘What I found difficult is the new cases that you got, you've only ever spoken to them over the phone, you can’t put a face to the name, you can’t picture that person. I just think for getting to know someone, and building rapport those face to face meetings are quite crucial at the beginning’ (Deborah)

One survey respondent explained the value of meeting service users like this: 

‘Professionally I feel that clients deserve face to face contact. It humanises our service to them and affords officers an insight into clients’ lives and struggle by way of reading body language.’ 

Practitioners spoke of the strategies that they used to build rapport and develop a working relationship over the telephone. They stressed that they used familiar processes: listening to people, being friendly and approachable, and being clear about the purposes, expectations and options of supervision. Remote working brought emotional labour, an intrinsic aspect of probation work, into sharper focus. Experienced practitioners (including Nicola and Claire) reflected on the way that they had adapted their communication approach to suit remote supervision. 

‘Obviously it's not the same as meeting them day one... but I think I have been able to build more or less the same rapport because... it's all about how you talk to somebody’ (Nicola)

‘I've only just realised how much of it [the job] I do by looking pleasant, and you know I'm quite smiley, I'm quite friendly - and if people don't hear that on the phone, I think possibly I sound a bit sharper on the phone, as it were, I talk quite fast... which probably makes a difference to people... I have had to work on talking more consciously slowly. I think possibly the way I come across if people haven't spoken to me before is just less approachable, maybe, on the phone, because I think I'm doing a lot of work with my body language’ (Claire) 

Practitioners were considerably more positive about the use of the telephone to communicate with service users with whom they had an established professional relationship. Few practitioners thought that the telephone had no place in probation supervision. Many had examples of telephone calls in which service users were more relaxed and open. Linda reflected on the possibility that both supervisor and supervisee could benefit from being away from the office environment. 

‘I don't know whether that's because they don’t need to cover up any body language on the phone, or maintain eye-contact. I don't know if they open up a bit more. I seem to have found out loads more about my service users than when they were in the office.’ 

One survey respondent wrote: 

‘I have found telephone discussions to be more open and engaging with some service users than face to face - one has said that he so hates just coming into the office (everything it represents for him), that he is in a state of agitation before seeing me, and so the first period of supervision is spent supporting him to relax (and this service user has been on licence for some years now); we do not have to go through this on the phone and the difference in engagement is remarkable.’ 

The use of telephone supervision also shed new light on the issue of boundaries in professional relationships. Practitioners who had not previously had a work mobile phone found themselves accessible to service users in unfamiliar ways; they had to make decisions about how many times to ring non-communicative service users and also how to respond to service users who phoned often and outside of agreed appointment times. Some practitioners found it easier than others to turn off the work mobile phone outside of office hours. 

Gemma described herself as strict with boundaries: 

‘because I haven't given out my number to service users I haven’t had these issues, but others who have given out their work number have had instances where SUs are constantly calling them or ringing them at inappropriate times.’ 

Lena observed that negotiating boundaries was part of her role; the use of email and mobile phones led to new ways in which people could over-step supervision boundaries, but, in some cases, she did judge it appropriate to share her email address with a service user. 

Practitioners varied in the extent to which they welcomed the changes in interpersonal dynamics that came with an increased use of telephone supervision. One of the most positive comments came from this survey respondent: 

‘Service users have the benefit of feeling like they are in a two-way relationship with their Programme Facilitators because they can easily contact them (with a message) on the phone, rather than simply being required to turn up to meetings with a group. This must encourage the impression that they are equal and responsible agents in their own rehabilitation, so improving their engagement and receptiveness’ 

For the majority of the research participants, their experience of telephone supervision overlapped with a period of working from home. Wider issues arising from home working are outside the scope of this study but, for practitioners, working at home added to the complexity of setting appropriate boundaries for professional relationships; it was not always possible to separate work time from home time and practitioners felt that, on occasions, telephone calls (particularly about difficult or intimate topics) risked being overheard by household members in their home as well as that of the service user. The use of video calls, if the supervisor was working from home, was identified as particularly inappropriate. 

‘I would really have to think about that because I am in my home, it's my background, it's too much of an invasion for me… too much information’ (Linda)

5.5 Working with involuntary clients 

Probation practitioners work with individuals who are subject to statutory supervision; service users are involuntary clients. This context brings a set of obligations and requirements with implications for the use of telephone and internet-based approaches to practice.

A number of practitioners identified that telephone supervision usually involved the supervisor making the call, whereas face-to-face supervision required the service user to attend an office appointment. This shift of responsibility was seen as increasing compliance; more appointments were kept and fewer warnings issued. Service users were more likely to answer the telephone than to report to the office. 

Nicola’s experience was that there was less need for enforcement action as:

 ‘they just pick up their phone….At the end of the day, they've answered you and you've contacted them.’

‘Compliance has actually been quite a lot better during the pandemic as people don't tend to avoid a phone call in the same way they avoid coming to the office’ (Emily) 

Other interviewees painted a more complex picture of the impact of telephone reporting on the formal nature of the supervision process. Sara voiced the concern that the informal nature of telephone reporting was ‘over-familiar’ and risked service users becoming ‘complacent’. 

Andrew made a similar point: he judged that coming to the office signalled supervisee compliance in a way that answering the phone did not. He was uncertain about the authenticity of telephone supervision. 

‘I hate it... I don't like it at all…you feel like you could be being lied to… without face to face contact, there's no way to know if what you are being told is the truth. You kind of get the feeling when you are talking to some people they are just spinning you a bit of a yarn really... almost laughing at you.’ 

One consequence of statutory supervision is the need for evidence of the pattern of appointments offered, instructions given, appointments attended, appointments missed and explanations received. Practitioners in this study valued the way that, when they used the computer system to send a text message, they received confirmation that the message had been delivered to the service user’s device. This confirmation could then be used as evidence in enforcement proceedings. Records of text messages sent replaced the paper appointment slips provided in face-toface sessions. 

Rebecca explained that, as she needed to be able to give an accurate account of contact and attempted contact from service users, she found it hard to turn off her work mobile outside of office hours. If the phone was turned off she did not have the detail of missed calls. If the phone was turned on she was aware of it ringing, sometimes repeatedly and during the night, leaving her anxious that she might be ignoring an emergency. 

Alongside the requirement to maintain contact with service users, practitioners were also aiming to deliver the interventions and programmes identified in supervision plans. As Table 3 shows, fewer than half of the survey respondents viewed telephone calls as always or often suitable for the task of structured supervision. 

One problem faced by supervisors was that implementing supervision plans during the pandemic was made harder because other agencies were having to deliver services in a reduced manner. Table 5 shows that access to drug, alcohol, mental health and money advice provision was constrained by the pandemic. The picture for accommodation services was more mixed, reflecting the considerable effort to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping during the crisis.

A further problem was the extent to which the service user was able or willing to concentrate on the session material. It was hard to recreate the focus that existed in face-to-face sessions and some service users chose to take the telephone call from a public place. Practitioners had examples of cases where service users gave only very short responses to questions, said that they were unable to hear, and simply ended the call. 

‘Early on [at the start of her career] I discovered that having a smiley face and just being able to look non-threatening and engaged in person I think probably goes a long way to counteract the fact that most of the time you are asking quite pertinent questions to people who don't want to tell you. And so when you are asking quite bold questions over the phone my experience has been people are more able to say something like, “well why do I have to tell you that?” “Sorry, what is this all about?” or even on various occasions to cut me off and pretend that they lost signal.’ (Claire) 

That said, practitioners also worked with service users who were less distracted and more able to participate than they had previously been in the probation office. For example, someone in full-time work as a van driver was now able to schedule lunchtime telephone appointments with his supervisor and speak from the privacy of his cab. Prior to the pandemic he had found it hard to attend appointments at the end of his working day, arriving in the office tired and stressed from the rush-hour traffic. 

Practitioners found it challenging to lead sessions without the visual aids and workbooks that they used in the office. However people had found a variety of ways of broadening the range of programme materials that they used in remote supervision sessions. Linda explained that she was sending information packs in the post and then, in some cases, having productive discussions over the telephone. She gave the example of victim awareness work with a service user: 

‘you could hear he was thinking over the phone... that was quite constructive’.

Winners and Losers

By the way I thought 'leave meant leave'? This announced yesterday:- 

Seetec to Run MOJ Commissioned CFO Activity Hubs to Steer Offenders Away from Crime

The Ministry of Justice has awarded us CFO activity hub contracts in the North West, South East and South West to deliver support to help offenders reintegrate back into their communities.

Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Co-Financing Organisation (CFO) provision for the European Social Fund (ESF) Activity Hubs will enable offenders to access tailored support, receive advice and guidance and interact with positive role models and peers at a similar stage of their resettlement journey. They will be supported to develop plans to move forward and ultimately be supported into education, employment and training.

We're committed to putting offenders at the heart of their own rehabilitation journey, combining skills training, employability services and practitioner expertise, all of which aims to move individuals into a crime-free life. We're already experienced at delivering probation services and currently supervise and support around 19,100 offenders categorised as low and medium risk in the South of England. In Wales, we deliver programmes that help people to turn away from crime, including community payback.

As an established provider of high-quality public services, we believe that no one should be left behind. Offenders are one group in our society that can sometimes feel they are forgotten. CFO Activity Hubs will aim to deliver targeted interventions to improve the support provided to one of the hardest-to-reach groups in our society.

This opportunity is a key milestone in the development of our public service offering. Alongside the launch of the CFO activity hubs next year, Interventions Alliance will be unveiled to manage the contracts as part of the Seetec group structure.

Our five new CFO activity hubs will work closely with justice partners in the local community. Three hubs will be based in the North West, Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington. One hub in the South East, located in Chatham and satellite provision will be delivered as part of the contract at St Leonards on Sea in East Sussex. We will also run an activity hub in the South West, Bristol was chosen as the operational base for the hub in that region.

There will be a 16-week implementation period starting this month. The CFO activity hubs will commence operations from the 1st of March 2021 and run for two and a half years.

Suki Binning, Executive Director of Justice services at Seetec, said:

“Seetec has a strong track record of delivering localised interventions that help offenders re-engage with their community. CFO Activity hubs are a great opportunity to build on our tried and tested model of support for offenders to achieve their life ambitions and break away from the cycle of criminal activity they pursued in the past.

“The pandemic continues to present providers of public services with unprecedented challenges, but we moved early this year to put in place robust systems, changed the way we worked and provided more support to our staff so that we could maintain the highest standards of support that continue to meet the needs of our service users. This means we have the right support structures in place to commence activity hub operations by the 1st of March 2021.

“Despite the current circumstances, we are looking forward to developing our existing network of operations across the North West, South East and South West to ensure from day one that our activity hubs offer a route for offenders to change their lives.”

--oo00oo--

I've never been a fan of this contract competition game as a way of providing public services and for every winner there are of course lots of losers. This from 3rd April:-   

HMPPS CFO Activity Hubs – Call for Expressions of Interest

HM Prisons & Probation Service (HMPPS) is commissioning activity hubs in community locations that will offer wide ranging tailored support for offenders – in particular those who are considered disadvantaged, facing multiple barriers to employment and not fully supported by existing programmes.

Achieve North West intends to bid for HMPPS Activity Hubs in the North West contract package area. The organisation is therefore looking for Expressions of Interest from organisations of all sizes, who provide high quality services, to partner with.

Achieve North West is seeking provision that will help participants not to re-offend, increase their access to mainstream opportunities and move them closer to the labour market. Offender participation will be voluntary.

Hubs will provide bespoke support through the provision of activities focused on personal development and citizenship, as well as social and economic integration into the community. The organisation is seeking provision including (please see draft specification on our portal for full details):

• Arts including crafts, drama, media, music and dance; sports; delivery of one off community projects
• Family support, relationship coaching, community development activity, literacy and numeracy, life skills, debt advice, work-related mentoring, accommodation advice and support

Achieve North West Connect delivers a range of services to offenders, both in custody and in the community, across North West England, including the HMPPS Co-Financing Organisation/European Social Fund Project ‘’CFO3’’.

Since 2010 the award-winning service has built a proven track record of delivering high impact services to offenders. Through direct delivery and a network of partners and sub-contractors, it provides specialist services in offender focused education, training, employment (ETE) and social inclusion. Achieve North West Connect is a wholly owned subsidiary of Career Connect, a charity providing wide ranging support, information, advice and guidance to people of all ages to help them enter and sustain education, training and employment.

Napo Annual Report 2019/20

The Annual Report stretches to 82 pages and I notice that the NEC met 5 times since the last report:-

"The NEC has met five times since the last annual report was written: scheduled meetings in September and November of 2019 and in March and June of 2020; and a Special NEC in July 2020. The Special NEC was to consider constitutional amendments to go to AGM in October. The NEC oversees the work of all Napo’s standing committees and networks and receives regular reports from them. Much of the business conducted by the NEC is therefore reported in other sections of the Annual Report."

Probation Negotiating Committee

1. The Committee carried one vacancy in Bands 1-3, one vacancy in Band 4 and one vacancy in Bands 5+. It has met in November, March, May July and August since the last annual report was written. The Committee would also want to thank former PNC members Esther Barton and Dino Peros for their work over previous years. 

2. The items below were discussed at meetings and incorporated regular updates by Link National Officials for their respective CRC areas. 

3. Probation Reunification update. The announcement in June this year that Interventions and Programmes would follow Sentence Management into the NPS, completed the first part of Napo’s campaign to return Probation back to full public ownership and control. 

4. Since the first announcement in May 2019 the General Secretary and National Chair have been involved in intensive negotiations on a new staff transfer and protections agreement to facilitate this major project, and after the new announcement in June 2020 the negotiations changed to accommodate the new plans. 

5. At the time of writing it is expected that there will be a CRC members’ ballot on the outcome of the negotiations in the summer. 

6. NPS Pay. The two year NPS pay deal ended in March 2020 but it became clear late last year that agreement on a Competency Based Framework model that was to provide the basis for future pay progression with effect from April 2020 would not be possible. This was through no fault of the recognised trade unions but a failure by the NPS to sufficiently resource this project. 

7. After further negotiations, the employer agreed that pay progression would be awarded to NPS staff in April 2020 and that unless the CBF was in place for a 12-month period prior to April 2021 then pay progression would also be enacted at that date. 

8. Unfortunately, the election of a new 80-seat majority Tory Government in December saw a hardening of attitude in respect of the pay remit policy and we heard the bad news that pay progression for NPS staff would be delayed. 

9. Napo were among many trade unions who had expressed concern prior to the General Election at what another Tory Government would mean for public sector pay. 

10. Obviously, the trade unions expressed outrage that our members were facing this unjust scenario and several meetings have taken place with the Director General for Probation and the Justice Minister over recent months. We have been reassured that pay progression will be paid when the 2020 pay negotiations are concluded. 

11. At the time of writing NPS Pay negotiations are at last set to resume. 

12. Pay Unity Campaign. Napo National Officials have maintained pressure on CRC owners to take positive steps to redress the imbalance between CRC and NPS pay rates, and recognise the significant recruitment and retention challenges across the whole of probation. 

13. On-Going HR Process issues, including PAYE and Pensions. Whilst further progress has been made in addressing the high number of members who continue to suffer from PAYE, pension and HR processing errors – including over and under payments. There have been intermittent problems since the last AGM. 

14. Representations on these systematic failings continue and Napo has continually raised the loss of trust and confidence in these systems with Ministers, as they must inevitably impact upon confidence in how safely staff from CRCs can be absorbed into the NPS when the CRC contracts come to an end in June 2021. 

15. CRCs Negotiating Items: 

a) Kent Surrey and Sussex CRCs/Seetec (including ex-Working Links owned CRCs) 

• Pay. After months of hard work by reps and national officials from Napo and our sister unions, SEETEC KSS CRC, made a pay offer at the turn of the year covering staff across all of their regions for 2020/2021. This follows an earlier joint pay claim and the declaration of a pay dispute which led to further talks between the parties. 

• It is fair to say that the improvement in industrial relations between senior SEETEC Management and the Unions since SEETEC took over the CRC contracts in Wales and the South West from Working Links, was a major factor in this pay offer being made. 

• SEETEC KSS CRC were the first employer to declare that they were prepared to match the current NPS pay rates. This was a major step forward in Napo’s long running campaign to achieve pay parity across both arms of the Probation service. 

b) The SEETEC offer 

• Realignment of all salary bands to the current NPS Pay bandings (if this results in less than a 3% increase for any employee, SEETEC would apply an unconsolidated payment for the % differential) 

• This proposal resulted in staff moving directly to the 2019 NPS position. Increasing the maxima of the band enabled employees at the top of the current pay band to receive an actual increase on their base pay. The employers offer meant that that the new minimum salary for any employee would be £19,977. 

• Mirroring the NPS bandings resulted in 74% of the workforce receiving an increase of 4% or above, and 52% of the workforce receiving an increase of 5% or above. 

• The offer was subsequently overwhelmingly accepted by members 

c) Interserve CRCs - pay 

• Following the 2018-19 award which was paid in February 2019 and was back dated to April 18, Napo and UNISON submitted a pay claim for 2019-20 in March 2019 for a minimum 3% increase for all Interserve CRC employees to be achieved through the payment of an annual increment on 1 April, restructuring of the pay spine and an unconsolidated payment if necessary. 

• An initial offer was rejected by 92% of Napo members and a series protracted pay talks ensued. Eventually a new offer emerged which was accepted by Napo members in July this year as follows: 

- April 2020 to November 2020 - one spine point increment. This was paid in May 2020, for all eligible staff; 

- April 2020 to November 2020 - an unconsolidated amount of £200 for those at the top spine point for their grade (This is pro-rata of the £300 full year amount taking it to December 2020);

- Removal of pay band overlap between bands 4 and 5, effective from 1 April 2020; - 5 December 2020 to June 2021 (at which point the CRC contract ends)

- NPS pay parity which will be paid in December 2020 payroll; 

- April 2021 to June 2021 (at which point the CRC contract ends) - one spine point increment to those eligible as per the NPS national agreement reached with the unions; 

- Allowances will remain unchanged. Any agreed changes with the NPS will take effect when pay parity is implemented in December. 

d) Sodexo CRCs 

• Pay. Napo and UNISON have held a number of further meetings on pay with Sodexo since the last AGM. Significant progress was made and the employer has recognised the importance of delivering pay reform in these discussions. 

• The Sodexo Pay agreement covers the six Sodexo CRCs for the years 2020/21 and 2021/22 (up to the CRC contract end). The offer was designed to modernise the pay structure so that staff will reach the top of the scale within a much shorter timeframe. 

• The main terms of the offer comprised for 2020/21 a 2.5% Non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band A minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a non-consolidated payment will be made. 

• The 2021/22 Pay Offer is a 2.5% non-consolidated payment for those at the top of their pay band 4 and a minimum pay increase for all other staff of 2.0%. For most this will be achieved through incremental progression however in instances where incremental progression is less than 2.0% a nonconsolidated payment will be made. 

e) Durham Tees Valley CRC 

• Pay. The second instalment of the two year pay agreement reached with Durham Tees Valley CRC has been enacted 

• This comprised a deal for 2020/21 and 2021/22 covering the remaining 15 months to contract end in June 2021. The pay deal provides a guaranteed minimum pay award of 6%, payable from April 2020 and assimilation onto the NPS pay scales. This means that the new pay scales will significantly reduce the time to progress through each pay band and the value of progression will be larger than in the current pay structure. Also, the offer guarantees each member of staff a minimum increase of 6% and some staff will receive a greater increase. As this offer met Napo’s demand, that the pay scales at DTV CRC are aligned to the NPS, Napo recommended acceptance of the pay offer. As a result Napo members voted overwhelmingly to accept the offer. The result of the ballot was 92% accept and 8% reject with a 50% turnout. 

f) MTC – London and Thames Valley 

• Pay. Whilst MTC have proposed a series of initiatives to help recruit and retain more staff across London and Thames Valley, where the problem continues to undermine workloads and performance, progress on taking forward the issue of pay beyond incremental progression has been very slow. 

• At the time of writing it was hoped that the employer would soon be in a position to make a realistic pay offer to the unions but the business case was awaiting central clearance. 

g) RRP: Staffordshire West Midlands and Derby, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland 

• Pay. At the time of writing the company CEO is hoping to be in a position to make a formal pay offer to the unions once the business case has been cleared. The pay offer is only from October 2020 onwards but is a better position than was originally offered. Napo are working with RRP to push the MoJ into signing off the proposal as soon as possible. 

h) WWM CRC: Warwickshire West Mercia 

• Pay. WWM have only been able to make incremental progression payments and have been slow to address the wider issues of excessive workloads and staff shortages. At the time of writing a business case has been made for the opening of formal pay talks in September when the CRC believes it may be in a position to offer an increase for the last 6 months of their contract running from January 2021 until June. 

16. National NPS JNC and TU Engagement Meetings 

a) Privatisation of NPS Approved Premises - Double Waking Night Cover 

• Napo has continually raised the issues arising from the privatisation of DWNC at senior levels of the NPS and with Ministers. The results of a review of the project is expected later this year and we have made it clear that we do not believe that these contracts should be extended. 

• Regular reports on the impact of these flawed arrangements have been made to the PNC by the National Link Officer Siobhan Foreman (Vice-Chair) on which valuable feedback has been provided by PNC members. 

b) Approved Premises – Transition of Approved Premises to Community Interventions 

Regular reports on the progress of this project have been made to the PNC by the National Link Officer Siobhan Foreman (Vice-Chair) on which valuable feedback has been provided by PNC members. 

c) AP Staff Rota 

Trade unions have regularly raised issues around the impact of the national rota and this is now under review at the AP TU meetings. 

d) AP Pay Issues Update 

The unions have raised the issues around inconsistencies with pay in particular pay- protection, toil, overtime, unsocial hours and SSCL errors. 

e) National Facility time agreement update 

• The NPS presented an offer calculated on the basis of Cabinet Office rules i.e. the entitlement to facilities is a proportion of the pay bill. We have not yet accepted this and continue to discuss the actual allocation of time needed to support the employer in their reform programme. 

• The emergency measures introduced as a result of C-19 has meant that Napo has successfully sought additional time for our representatives to undertake Health and Safety duties. 

• Once circumstances allow it is intended to resume the negotiations and it is hoped that the introduction of a new Regional structure within the NPS will facilitate these exchanges. The changes to branch structure will further support negotiations at regional level. 

f) Offender Management in Custody 

• This has been a complex and difficult issue and the following summary reports the position that has been reached at the time of writing. 

• The consultation process. Napo have been consulted by the employer on the plans to implement OMiC. This is a consultation not a negotiation and although we can raise concerns and make suggestions and requests, we are not in a position to agree (or fail to agree) the plans. We are aware that many members have significant concerns over the fundamental design of OMiC and we have communicated these concerns. 

• The implementation process. There are Divisional Implementation Boards (DiBs) which are made up of both prison and probation representatives. These boards have now all submitted their OMiC implementation plans and Napo reps should have been consulted on this locally via the NPS JCC (Joint Consultative Committee) for the division/region. 

• The Women’s Estate. The model for the Women’s Estate varies in that the allocation of resource is based on complexity of need rather than risk. In the most complex cases (around 19% of the total) the POM will carry out the key work rather than having a separate keyworker allocated. This, it is hoped, will aid continuity and relationship building. 

• The contracted out estate. These are the privately run prisons and the original plan was to require (via the contracting process) them to have an SPO who holds a Probation Qualification but not to require these prisons to have Qualified Probation Officers holding cases as POMs. More work was undertaken on the plans for the contracted out estate following representations that Napo and the NPS senior leaders have made about this. Napo’s position is that Offender Management should only be done by someone who has the appropriate skills and qualification for the role they are carrying out and who are offered the appropriate support and remuneration for doing so. 

• The current position is that there will be POMs with a Probation qualification in each contracted out prison and they will either hold high risk cases or oversee the work done on these cases using the Case Management Support model. This does not necessarily have to be a member of NPS staff however it is reported that most of the private prisons have requested a staff loan/secondment arrangement from the NPS which will have a further impact on staffing. 

• Workloads for SPOs and POs working in OMiC 

The current method for looking at SPO workload is on a ratio basis. In community teams this is 1:10 FTE (full time equivalent). Under the OMiC model it will be up to 1:14 FTE. This means that some prison SPOs will have a high workload in terms of team members reporting to them in addition to the other tasks they need to undertake in their role. Napo have made representations on this, as well as the fact that the SPOs will be managing a team made up of staff from differing employers who will have different terms and conditions and potentially differing expectations in terms of line management. We will continue to press the employer on these issues and a review is underway. 

• The introduction of EDMs during the Covid-19 crisis highlighted the issues relating to NPS SPOs being line managed by Prison Governors. There have been reported tensions between expectations of prisons and NPS and the plans for line management have not been fully implemented as yet. We continue to use every opportunity to press HMPPS to rethink this part of the model. 

• IT solutions. There is a new IT based allocation system for use in prisons. This is to assist with the allocation of cases to either Prison staff OMs or NPS OMs within the team. The tool has been tested with some users and further work and testing will be carried out. Napo have asked that this tool is properly tested for AT compliance by end users before it is rolled out. We have also asked if an aspect of workload measurement can be built in to further assist the SPO will allocation decisions and this is in progress. Further work is being done on digital tools for the project and we are being consulted on them. 

g) Workloads 

• Workloads remain a critical issue across probation. It is hoped that the reunification of the service will allow for a wholesale review of the workload measurement and management process and the mis-match between demand and staffing levels in both CRCs (where they have not recovered from often cutting staff at the start of contracts) and the NPS (where they have not recruited enough POs after under-estimating how much work would remain in the NPS at the time of the original staff split). 

• Current data is still being gathered from CRCs, but at time writing there is a 23% + vacancy rate for POs across the NPS. Napo’s work in the wider reunification campaign has featured the fact that staff routinely report a normal case load allocation that places them at 130-140% on the workload measurement tool. This is dangerous and unsustainable. 

• Napo have also issued guidance to branches and members about how to protect themselves from excessive workload, including how to serve a foreseeability notice on their employer ahead of likely injury. 

• PNC has also focused much discussion on the particular pressures that increased workload and excessive additional HR burdens have placed on SPOs in CRCs and especially the NPS. Overloading SPOs creates wider problems – mistakes occur that stall HR processes; local employee relations become tense, reducing engagement and productivity levels; staff feel unsupported or isolated so become more prone to mistakes; and higher than expected sickness amongst SPOs has a disproportionate multiplying factor on all the other challenges. 

h) Serious Further Offence (SFO) procedures

 • There continue to be a number of high profile (as well as less high profile) SFOs coming to light. Napo has supported members who have been involved in resulting processes such as capability and disciplinary as well as those called to give evidence in Coroner’s Courts. HMPPS has consulted on both updates to SFO investigation and reporting guidance (making this more streamlined and the report more of a narrative than tick box as well as updating disclosure guidance) and updated guidance to support managers who, as a result of information that comes to light in an SFO process, need to consider taking action using either capability or disciplinary processes. 

• Throughout these consultations we have successfully argued for the consideration of workloads and have ensured that managers are always prompted to consider ‘no action necessary’ as an outcome. SFO investigations are necessary to ensure that organisations learn from these tragic events. We support all efforts to do this, especially where lessons can be learned by the organisation(s) involved however we will use whatever steps necessary to protect members from being unfairly scape-goated for organisational and systemic failings.

Justice Committee Hears From CRCs 2

Here we have the final part of the oral evidence from the CRCs:-

Q45 Dr Mullan: We heard from the probation inspectorate that two of the providers are rated as good. You have all talked about some of the positive work that you think you do. We are all keen to make sure that is carried across in some way. 

There are two things. The dynamic framework obviously sets out, just for resettlement services, that other people will be involved in providing services out of house. If the dynamic framework could be adjusted, and if there was an ability for providers like yourselves, on a non-geographical basis or even a smaller basis, to get involved in providing some of the intervention services that, for example, at the moment are going to go in-house, would that work for you? Would you be able to respond to that market approach, where you did not have a whole contract but could come in and help deliver some of the services that you may have a good track record of delivering? 

Trevor Shortt: There are some really good principles underpinning the dynamic framework. It gives local commissioners real opportunity to commission services that make sense in their patch. The wash-out on it, if you like, is that the procurement of those services is now under way, but not all of them will be in place for 26 June next year. The question we need to deal with is what happens to services that are not part of the day one services, and what happens to the organisations that are currently providing some of those, and indeed the people who were involved in some often small and bespoke organisations and local services that we need to look after through the transition. 

Q46 Dr Mullan: Let me pick up on that answer. I get from that that you perhaps think there is a wider scope. Our current interpretation is that the dynamic framework just allows for the resettlement services and not the broader interventions that you might undertake with a probationer. Do you have a different interpretation? 

Trevor Shortt: I think we see it as being both. From a Sodexo perspective, we are interested in what we might be able to provide in the dynamic framework. To answer your original question, we are looking at each of the call-offs in their own right, but it is not something we are seeing as a substitute for what might have been under the PDP. 

Suki Binning: The employee owners of Seetec are very much interested in continuing to provide services in this space, including the dynamic framework. Some of the concerns we have are that it appears that some services that we currently provide will fall between the cracks. For instance, at the moment we do not quite know where restorative justice sits. We have dedicated teams that provide restorative justice and mentoring services. From some of the initiatives that we have seen up and down the country with other CRCs it is not really clear where they sit. That is our concern. Certainly, the employee owners are interested to continue contributing in this field. 

David Hood: The first question was on whether we would interested in providing services that at the moment are going to be taken in-house— the intervention type services. Of course, we would be interested in exploring that. We have some very capable people in our organisation. That was part of our PDP approach, so the answer to that is yes, we would be interested in exploring that. 

It is important to echo Suki’s point, because it applies to us as we look at the current dynamic framework and what appears to be in scope for day one. There are services, including in London in particular, that are not currently in scope for day one of the dynamic framework. A question arises as to staff, but also what about the needs of service users currently receiving those services? 

Adam Hart: I would echo but not repeat the points that have been made. My understanding of the day one services is that they include employment, training, education, personal wellbeing and accommodation types of services. There is a reasonable spectrum with, hopefully, more to follow. We think we have a great deal to offer in all those spaces. That is of interest to us, but, as Suki articulated, there is a potential gap that we need to make sure is filled. Suki cited restorative justice. I would cite mentoring, specifically peer mentoring. 

Within my organisation—others do something similar—I now have over 40, either voluntary or employee, ex-service users. They have been on our case load and have shown a desire to come and work with us, and we have provided employment for those individuals. It is important because they are the ones with real lived experience. We place them in a peer mentoring programme. At the moment, we cannot position that anywhere in the framework or, indeed, potentially in the services that are going to the NPS. The dynamic framework has some very good aspects, but it would be even healthier if it could be widened a little bit further. 

Q47 Dr Mullan: Would you agree with me that there is perhaps a bit of tension? You currently have people working in this field and you currently hold those contracts. Then there will be a switchover, but probably ideally what would happen is that the people you are working with transition over time to a different provider. You are holding people that we might want to recruit directly in-house to deliver some of the stuff that you are doing at the moment. 

Trevor Shortt: There is no doubt that we are facing a challenge as we head into the end of these contracts for that reason. A number of our staff sit very comfortably in the new arrangements in the national service, but that does not capture everyone, particularly staff who fall into the dynamic framework arrangements where those services are not competed and settled this side of June. They face some uncertainty, and there may be disruption to service that we will need to manage as part of that. 

David Hood: Because it is an important point, I echo Trevor’s point. We need to resolve the position quickly in relation to those staff. Some of those staff are some of the best staff in the service, and the most capable. Losing them elsewhere would be a tragedy and not in anyone’s interest, where they decide that the uncertainty means they need to look elsewhere. 

Q48 Dr Mullan: I will move on and ask Suki in particular about how the changes to the model affect Wales. Obviously, the arrangements are different in Wales. 

Suki Binning: The Wales transfer of case management took place in December. The transition went quite smoothly. We had reservations that maybe post the transfer we might see a drop in referrals for programmes because we would have two organisations, but I am really pleased that that has not happened. The number of referrals for the behaviour change programmes has continued. 

We have a group of staff who were really motivated to take on the unpaid programmes work and be solely dedicated to do that, and they are quite disappointed now. In terms of the transfer, we were transferring case management which, on the whole, nationally is quite similar. There are only so many ways you can do case management of probation. Where we have differences is in how across the CRCs we deliver our unpaid work programmes, and we are transferring a very different thing. That is where it gets more complicated. 

Q49 Dr Mullan: Can I ask all of you about the impact of Covid-19 on the delivery of services? 

Adam Hart: Obviously, there is no getting away from the fact that there has been substantial impact on the service. I repeat a little bit of what I said earlier about the way people have managed to approach that. Organisations have stood up their best available people, plans and technology capabilities to rise to the challenge. What we are seeing now is the real impact of local lockdowns and the need to be incredibly flexible. We are literally monitoring the situation daily, if not hourly, to respond to that position. 

It is having a huge bearing on the way we operate. It is also of course increasing backlogs where they exist in the system. They exist in many places, so the pandemic is obviously a very long-lasting situation for all of us in the system. We are very mindful about how we hand that system back to the National Probation Service. We want it to be in the best possible space it can be. 

It is right to say that there have been some elements of the pandemic that have forced the system, and us as organisations, to react and respond slightly differently. There have been some benefits. I would cite the ability to work flexibly and remotely. Our capability has increased as a response to the pandemic. Also, some of what we do and how we do it has fundamentally shifted. It would be good if we did not lose that good-quality change, and if we embedded it in the new system. Overall, it is obviously a very significant and challenging time across the piece for us. 

Q50 Chair: Does anybody disagree or have anything to add? 

David Hood: I entirely agree. Adam has just made a good summary from our perspective. It would be remiss not to make the very clear and important point that heroic through this process have been the staff. Our staff have been quite remarkable in their adaptability, resilience and willingness to work together and with the Department to do something that is very different from what they are normally used to doing. I think we would all pay tribute to the staff within our organisations for that. They have been exceptional. 

Chair: Fair point. 

Q51 Rob Butler: I would like to talk, if I may, about some of the specifics of transition. I will pick up where Mr Hood left off in paying tribute to your staff. In my previous role as non-executive director of HMPPS, I met staff from all your companies, and was always incredibly impressed by their dedication, their commitment and their absolute determination to do the best by the service users. It is important that we do not lose sight of that when having discussions about the bigger picture. I am sure that view is shared by other members of the Committee. We would probably all wish you to pass on our thanks to them for working through an incredibly difficult period, not just because of Covid but because of the added uncertainty that the transition is creating for them, none of which has been brought on by themselves.

With that in mind, I am clear that they are working incredibly hard to try to hand over as effectively as they can. Some are going to move into the new unified model by next June. I would like to hear a little bit from each of you about how you see the transition going. If I may, I would like to start with Mr Hood, simply because I was in one of your hubs—the Bicester hub—a couple of weeks ago. It happens to deal with offenders from my constituency. I know there are particular concerns there about the case management system. Could you kick us off by talking through where you see us with transition, please? 

David Hood: Transition is incredibly difficult. If I can go back again to the points that Justin Russell made, he made the point that as with any transition of this dimension there are many moving parts. It is exceptionally complex. You are trying to take 21 CRCs, many of which have different operating models, and combine them with NPS regions. You are trying to deliver a dynamic framework and do all of it in the context of Covid, and within a period of less than a year. That is incredibly hard. 

The approach the Department is trying to take, as I understand it, is to do what they refer to as lift and shift and, rightly, try to deliver a new model with as little disruption on day one as possible. The reality is that, when you look at our CRCs, they are not delivering a lift and shift. The case management system is a good example, because it is a fundamental tool that our staff use. It is very different from what the NPS uses. It took us well over six months just to roll it out and train staff on that new tool. It sits within a suite of other technologies that support operations and are delivering operations in the context of reduced staff numbers over the years. Combining all those things together, we are presented with a very difficult proposition to get all of it working in June 2021. 

Q52 Rob Butler: Do you think there is any risk to public safety as a result of those difficulties? 

David Hood: In June 2021, if we have not effectively transitioned and we end up with something a bit chaotic, inevitably there must be some risk to public safety. The goal and the aim of all of us must be to make sure that that is not the case. That is certainly our goal. I acknowledge that it is also the Department’s goal, but they have really taken on a difficult task. 

Q53 Rob Butler: Do you feel that you have sufficient input to the Department to flag warnings when they are appropriate, and that they are being heeded? 

David Hood: Initially, when it started off, I think we were probably kept a little bit at arm’s length in terms of the planning. That has improved. We have a reasonable amount of input at the centre, and that seems to be increasing—necessarily so. At regional level, we have a lot of input in London and in the Thames Valley. Both those regions are served, I must say, exceptionally well by two very exceptional regional directors, who are very collaborative, as are their teams. That picture has improved, but it does not take away from the fact that this is an incredibly complex and challenging exercise. 

Q54 Rob Butler: Ms Binning, from your CRC’s perspective, how would you assess the process of transition? 

Suki Binning: Similarly to what David said. The timetable is very ambitious. It is not helped by the Covid situation. Locally, relationships with the regional transition boards are positive and very collaborative. That is all very good. I would, however, welcome a pause and a reflection on the timetable for transition in the light of Covid. 

Q55 Rob Butler: What would feel a more realistic timeframe to you? 

Suki Binning: I would look for a pause to look at where we are now and, in light of today’s news about further restrictions, take that into account and say, “Is June 2021 now a reasonable date to transfer?” The staff you have spoken about are very committed and are working very hard on making sure that we continue to provide a service that serves our communities, at the same time as doing the transition. I would like some time to have a look at that date and say, “Is that realistic now because of the pandemic?” 

Q56 Rob Butler: I infer from what you are suggesting that you do not think it is realistic. 

Suki Binning: I think it is really ambitious. It is putting a huge amount of stress on the operational delivery of services. 

Q57 Rob Butler: Mr Shortt, what is your assessment of the transition process, and would you share similar concerns to those we have already heard? 

Trevor Shortt: Yes, I share the concerns that have already been expressed. This is a complex transaction. We have the added complexities of Covid and the speed at which it is being done, all of which are stressors. Doubtless, there is a real will to deliver it both on this side and on the side of the Department. There is a huge amount of resource, time and energy going into that. 

As David said, at the beginning we felt perhaps a little distant from it. That position has improved at national and regional level. We also have some incredibly good regional directors across the NPS working with our own regional chief executives across some quite complex programme lines on the project to deliver it, but there is likely to be a chunk of outstanding work post transfer that will take some time to pack down and for the system to be performing again in the way we would all like it to be. 

Q58 Rob Butler: Mr Hart, do you want to add anything to what has been said about the generalities of transition planning? I would be particularly keen to hear your views on risks that are associated with it, and what you are doing to mitigate them. 

Adam Hart: I have a couple of points to add. First and foremost, it is right for me to say that I believe we have had very good engagement from the Department, especially over latter weeks and months. They are to be commended for the efforts that they are undertaking. It is a challenge. It is incredibly ambitious. I think that is recognised. 

It feels, however, that, because of that engagement, we are able to shine a spotlight on the areas of deficiency at this moment in time. We have to recognise that we are three months in, since the Lord Chancellor’s announcement. I would articulate that it perhaps does not quite feel like three months into a 12-month programme. I think we are still getting off the blocks. We need to expedite in order to safely deliver a transition in June 2021.

It feels like we are trying to do a 12 to 18-month programme in the remaining nine months. That would be my best descriptor. I say that because of the complexities of the programme itself, which is, effectively, taking 20 or 21 unique models and moving them into a unified model, whether that is technology, training requirements or staffing. The second reason I say that is that operating in the pandemic is, quite rightly, draining resources away to the frontline service that we need to provide and giving less management time to something as important as the successful transition. That can only heighten the risk. 

We are looking to mitigate as a CRC provider. I know that the MOJ is always seeking to mitigate risks, but for me those are the risks that we are currently facing. Having continued open and frank dialogue is a big risk mitigator. I am encouraged that that is there, but I think the way to best mitigate the risk is to slow things down a little bit and take stock. We should make sure that we have all the attributes of the system understood, known and planned for. We should have a single detailed plan. At the moment, we have a relatively high-level milestone-based plan. We need something of real rigour that sits underneath that milestone plan. I have no doubt that is being worked up, but, three months in, it would be good for all of us to be working to that. 

Another way of de-risking is to make sure we have clear dependencies between what is a donor recipient arrangement between the CRCs and the National Probation Service, and indeed the DF providers, and to understand the critical path to try to head off some of the risks that we have not even identified yet, because we do not have detailed analysis. If we could determine that critical path, we could head off quite a few of the risks of the future. I am sure some of those things will be available, hopefully in the near future. 

Some of them link to having a detailed target operating model for us all to share as the end state, the goal. As was mentioned in the previous evidence session, I do not believe that is due until early in the new year. Along with other materials, those are the types of things that will de-risk the approach and make it a success, which we all want, regardless of what our individual thoughts are about the good and the bad of undertaking the change. The change is going to happen; it needs to happen safely. 

Q59 Rob Butler: Briefly on that last point, do you share any of the concerns that Mr Hood expressed that there could potentially be a risk to public protection and public safety? Adam Hart: Given the statement that I just made, running what feels like a 12 to 18-month programme in a nine-month window has to heighten the risk to public safety. We are duty-bound to attempt to mitigate that. 

Q60 Rob Butler: Mr Shortt and Ms Binning, would you share those concerns? 

Suki Binning: Yes. The risks increase when you are trying to rush the transition through. 

Trevor Shortt: Any structural change brings its risks. I support what has been said, and we will obviously do everything we possibly can, together with the Department, to ensure that we mitigate those risks. 

Q61 Maria Eagle: You have all just expressed varying levels of concern about the risks of transition to the capability of the system and to public safety. Do you think there has been enough consideration of the needs of those who are being supervised by the system in the design of the new arrangements and the implementation of the transition? 

David Hood: I will leave one of those points to Suki. In terms of the transition, it feels to me that the best outcome for service users will be that the transition is carried out and completed smoothly, so that the services, as far as service users are concerned, feel very much the same moving from one to the other. 

That must be at risk if we are rushing a transition that is in danger on day one of being in a difficult position. It will inevitably therefore have an effect on the quality of service to service users. Coming back to the point made earlier, we need to be very careful that the transition is done effectively in the best interests of service users. 

Q62 Maria Eagle: Does anybody else want to come in on that point? 

Suki Binning: We have a service user council with representation from our service users, and they have been involved. We are also inviting the National Probation Service to seek representation from our service user council on the transition boards, which will ensure that they are part of the plans and can highlight concerns from a service user perspective. 

Adam Hart: Every major service I have ever run has always benefited from having service users in the design process. We are about to undertake a substantial change. To my knowledge, service users are not directly involved in the design of the future state solution. It is a little bit difficult because we do not have the TOM in the underlying plan to fully understand whether it is planned to engage with service users. I do not believe that service users across our communities have been engaged. I think that is one of the ways we will mitigate the residual risks. 

Where we have managed to engage with service users as groups and as communities, we have always taken stock and managed to improve services. Like Suki, we have something similar where we listen to the concerns and the positives that come from service users. We tailor our services on a regular basis. That would feel a totally appropriate thing to do. 

Trevor Shortt: I echo that. I do not think there has been, to my knowledge anyway, any input from service users in the overall design. However, we have service user councils, which are quite mature, running across all our services. Since the initial change in direction 12 months ago, when it was clear that CRCs were not going to be part of the landscape, we have been working quite closely with NPS regional directors as they have come into post to extend those service user arrangements and join them up, with User Voice as the VCS organisation sitting behind that and helping us to operate those services. 

I echo one other previous point. Critically in this transition, we want to ensure that some of the small bespoke and local arrangements that are of real benefit to service users are able to be picked up and carried on. 

Q63 Maria Eagle: How are the probation service users or offenders who are being managed by the system being supported during the transition? Are there plans in place? What are some of the risks, if any, associated with the transition for those who are being managed at present by your organisations and by the NPS separately? 

Trevor Shortt: Our expectation, which was set out by Justin Russell in evidence earlier this afternoon, is that, as case loads move, the staff working on those case loads move together with them. There should be a fundamental underpinning continuity that helps in the transition. As I said a moment ago, it is some of the other services that are placed in and around the interventions that we particularly need to secure. 

David Hood: Agreeing with Trevor’s point, I reiterate a point I made earlier. Continuity is critical. We know what our services and needs are. You can predict them looking forward. At the moment, many of those needs are met by the additional services that we receive and benefit from, delivered in particular by third sector providers. It is critical that those are available on day one of the new world. It is not clear to us that all of them will be either the type of service or the volume of service to meet the need. 

Adam Hart: The only thing I would add is that every CRC is relatively unique in its delivery model to some extent. In the CRCs in which we are involved, we have a model where approximately one in two, or one in three, of our staff are probation practitioners offering supervisory and other services. The other staff provide wrap-around services. Some provide interventions, but quite a lot provide services that do not readily appear in the user manual. Some of them are peer mentors or are in other services that we provide outside the norm. It is important in terms of the day one service in June 2021 to recognise that those wrap-around services are really important to the transition process itself, not only the safety of that process but the quality of the process. 

Q64 Andy Slaughter: I am reflecting on this discussion as we get towards the end of it. It has a bit of a feeling of after the Lord Mayor’s show about it. You are all concerned that there are risks in the transition or at least in the timetable for the transition. A lot of other people were concerned, including the Government, that it is a model that has not worked and that is why it is being abandoned after a short period of time. Whichever perspective you come from, it is a traumatic process and perhaps an unusual process for the public sector to go through. 

It affects the public and it affects users. I want to go back and look at staff again. As Mr Butler said, staff are at the heart of this. It is the quality of staff and the morale of staff that will deliver a decent service. Without being too personal about it, what is going to happen to all of you? Some of you come from a public sector background. Are you going back to that, or are you going to manage other parts of your private company’s organisation? What is happening to the senior management, and what is happening to the staff on the ground? 

Suki Binning: Senior managers and the staff will be transferred to wherever the work is going. If it is work that is going to the NPS—unpaid work programmes and case management—they will be on the list to transfer to the National Probation Service. If the work they do falls into the dynamic framework, they will move to those services. That includes staff across the spectrum. 

Q65 Andy Slaughter: I think you said you had a probation service background. Are you going back to that, or are you sticking with your company? 

Suki Binning: I will be on the list for transfer. What happens in the future, I do not yet know. 

Q66 Andy Slaughter: Does that go for the rest of you? I think some of you have more of a consultancy background, so I do not know where you are going. 

Trevor Shortt: The process of assignment is happening right now for the majority of our staff. There is, in all fairness, quite a degree of clarity for people who sit in very obvious places in the national system post June next year. There is less clarity for some of the parent organisation staff and some of what we call our back-office staff—that is inelegant; they are staff who look after things like finance, HR and other services. Finally, there is a group of staff who perhaps sit across different service areas. The balance of that is not quite clear yet in the new model. Some of them are disproportionately represented in the VCS partnerships we have. There is still some degree of uncertainty for a section of our staff, albeit with clarity for the majority. 

Q67 Andy Slaughter: That must add another layer of uncertainty on top of what must be a very traumatic period for the staff in any event. I do not know whether any other panellists want to comment on that, particularly with an eye to the fact that perhaps a high proportion of your staff will not have worked for the National Probation Service previously. For them, it will not be going back to something; it will be something fresh. How are you supporting them, and how is that transfer being managed? 

Adam Hart: We are very much at the start of that assignment process. It certainly has not completed yet. What we are already experiencing are probably more questions than the answers we are able to provide at this moment at time. Where that leads us is having very regular dialogue with our staff, who, in some respects, fall into at least two categories: those who have certainty about their future and those who do not. Those who do still have a huge number of questions that remain to be answered; hence my points about the target operating model and so on. That would immensely help with being able to answer those questions. The second group, however, are the people I and Mr Shortt mentioned in terms of the support service—the back-office staff. We are awaiting those responses as we speak. 

It is worth adding that various key senior members of staff have already started to transfer under agreement, where it is seen as appropriate to do so. I think that is the correct collaborative approach to take, but it applies more pressure to the CRCs in general, as we are now starting to lose quite senior managers to the NPS system, to allow the NPS to run their own programmes of change, because of course they are changing at the same time. That is a really important point. 

We have also undertaken quite a few secondments in both directions to look at how we embed some of the thinking from CRCs into NPS, and NPS into CRCs, so that we can learn rapidly. There is willingness to collaborate and demonstration of that fact. However, I do not think that gets us to the point of being able to answer everybody’s questions quite yet. It feels like we are a little way from knowing those answers just yet. 

David Hood: Echoing Adam’s point, there are a lot of opportunities for communication with staff and for staff to ask questions about the transition. Many of those opportunities are very collaborative. Last week, there was a joint session in London that involved the current MD of MTC and the London regional director. It involved CRC and NPS staff. It was focused very much on transition. The opportunities are there, but Adam is absolutely right: until we have answers to critical questions around where certain individuals will be placed and whether they have a role in the NPS, we are in a place where a lot of the answers to the questions that are being asked cannot be given. Therefore, the uncertainty cannot be addressed. The sooner we get to a place where it can be, then of course the better. 

This is obviously a staff business, and we have to make sure that they are retained and looked after. The history of the last few years has seen many experienced staff depart from probation. The challenge is how we stem that and, indeed, how we bring more experienced staff back into that world. Giving them clarity around the future will be critical to that. 

Q68 Andy Slaughter: If you are not getting answers to those questions at this stage, with only a matter of months to go, why is that happening and who are you not getting answers from? 

David Hood: The answers are not coming from the Department at the moment. That reflects where they are in their transition planning. We are about to enter a process of identifying those in the CRCs who will be assigned. That will take place over the coming months. As Adam said, we are expecting an answer on other staff very soon. We expect the answers to come soon. From my perspective, they cannot come soon enough, but they need to come from the Department as part of their planning process. 

Suki Binning: We have been working very closely with the regional probation directors on the transfer of staff, particularly from a cultural perspective. The staff in my CRCs are going from being employee owners to the civil service. We are conscious that on both sides that is going to be quite a significant change. We have been working very closely with the regional directors and having joint communications to make the transition, and ensuring that staff adapt to those changes. 

Q69 Andy Slaughter: I will end on this point. You are not quite as garrulous as a lot of the witnesses we have in front of us. 

Chair: That is a compliment. 

Andy Slaughter: It is a sort of compliment. I get the feeling that you all feel rather bruised by this experience, but also a little bit reticent. I do not know whether that is because you have to continue to negotiate the transition or because your companies have other contracts with Government, but I will give you a final chance. Our role is to report and send a message to the Ministry to say what we think has gone wrong and what still needs to be got right. Can you have a final go at saying what you think are the key mistakes and what still needs to be got right? 

Adam Hart: I would summarise it very succinctly: there is no contingency. To move forward with a programme as important as this and as sensitive towards public safety as this with no contingency is the area that needs to be looked at. 

There is no doubting that given sufficient time the risks can be mitigated, but I do not think that the nine months or so available is sufficient time to mitigate all of the risks to a highly satisfactory level. The simple comment I would make is to try to create that space and the contingency so that nothing feels rushed, and everything feels appropriately considered before action is taken. 

Chair: That is a fair observation. Thank you very much for your help and for your assistance. Although I appreciate that the circumstances cannot be easy for everybody, whatever one’s views of the policy decisions that were taken, I want to thank all of you for the work that you have done in relation to the sector. I hope you will pass that on to all your staff and your colleagues. We appreciate it. If we do not have more evidence from you, we wish all of you individually well and also those who work for you. I am very grateful to you for your time and for your evidence today.