Oh Look - A Dead Cat!

I've been putting this blog together for long enough to know there are certain things that trigger above usual interest and Chris Grayling is one of them with viewing figures suddenly jumping to over 3,000 yesterday. His inability to win a rigged election to chair an intelligence committee and remain oblivious to a coup clearly resonated with readers. 

But it's no laughing matter as we learn daily the lengths Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings will go to in order to lie, cheat and control. They are both bullies and control freaks used to getting their own way by whatever means possible, both ruthless and shameless in equal measure and we should be constantly alert to their manipulative games. 

Yesterday's spectacular Parliamentary coup that apparently got Boris so angry came about because neither of these deeply unattractive and flawed characters appreciate just how many enemies they've created everywhere and who will bite their arses whenever the opportunity presents itself. Cummings' disdain for Parliament and backbench MP's in particular is legendary and will continue to rebound on his boss as he exhausts any remaining political capital. 

So, despite everything, that bloody Russia report is coming out on Monday after all and therefore a dead cat is required urgently in order to try and steer the news agenda and prepare for the inevitable furore next week:-       

"I am today updating Parliament on the ongoing investigations into the leak of the UK-US Free Trade Agreement documents ahead of the General Election in 2019. The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee has been briefed on the details of this incident.

The Government has robust systems in place to protect the UK against foreign malign influence. These bring together government, civil society and private sector organisations to monitor and respond to interference, to ensure our democracy stays open, transparent and resilient. During the 2019 General Election a cross-Government election security cell was stood up to coordinate responses to threats and hazards relating to the election.

On the basis of extensive analysis, the Government has concluded that it is almost certain that Russian actors sought to interfere in the 2019 General Election through the online amplification of illicitly acquired and leaked Government documents.

Sensitive Government documents relating to the UK-US Free Trade Agreement were illicitly acquired before the 2019 General Election and disseminated online via the social media platform Reddit. When these gained no traction, further attempts were made to promote the illicitly acquired material online in the run up to the General Election.

Whilst there is no evidence of a broad spectrum Russian campaign against the General Election, any attempt to interfere in our democratic processes is completely unacceptable. It is, and will always be, an absolute priority to protect our democracy and elections.

There is an ongoing criminal investigation and it would be inappropriate for us to say anything further at this point.

The Government reserves the right to respond with appropriate measures in the future.

The UK will continue to call out and respond to malign activity, including any attempts to interfere in our democratic processes, alongside our international partners. We fully support the recent action taken by our German partners who exposed Russian responsibility for the hack of their Parliament in 2015 as well as their intention to act against those responsible under the cyber sanctions regime. The UK Government laid the statutory instrument for our own cyber sanctions regime on 17 June."

Dominic Raab

The March of Failing Grayling

On the day we hear that Chris Grayling hasn't been able to win a rigged election, the effects of his TR 'reforms' of probation nevertheless live on, albeit now in their death throws and as the privateers disgracefully cut corners to save cash. Surely HMI Justin Russell can't be surprised by any of this? Here's today's press release:-   

Hampshire and Isle of Wight probation service – staff shortfall leads to ‘sharp decline’

A cost-cutting restructure has had a ‘profound’ effect on a probation service, according to inspectors. HM Inspectorate of Probation conducted a part-inspection of the Hampshire & Isle of Wight Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) in March. The CRC supervises nearly 3,000 low and medium-risk offenders; some are serving community sentences while others have left or are preparing to leave prison.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “In 2018-2019, Hampshire & Isle of Wight was the only one out of 21 CRCs to be rated ‘Good’. On our return, it was disappointing to find a sharp decline in the quality of work with individuals under probation supervision. We have concluded this is directly related to a shortfall in sufficiently trained and experienced probation staff.”

The CRC is owned by Purple Futures, a consortium of private and third-sector businesses. Senior leaders explained that they went ahead with a restructure because the consortium had reduced income and needed to cut costs.

The new operating model was based on an experienced and skilled workforce being in place. Senior leaders had failed to take sufficient account of the need for skilled staff and the time required to recruit and train new case managers. Inspectors found there had been a 38 per cent reduction in the number of senior case managers since the previous inspection. While the number of lower-grade case managers had risen significantly, 45 per cent were new to the service.

Mr Russell said: “After the last inspection, we warned that substantial changes to the workforce would put the quality of work at risk. It takes time for new probation staff to develop the knowledge, skills and experience to handle complex cases. The negative impact of the restructure on the service has been profound.”

Inspectors found new staff had been assigned complex cases that were beyond their level of experience. More established staff had high workloads, which compromised the quality of their work. Management oversight was stretched and did not pay enough attention to potential risks of harm.

In contrast, inspectors found a much-improved Through the Gate service for individuals preparing to leave prison and resettle in the community. The CRC received additional funding from central government and this area of work was rated ‘Outstanding’. The delivery of unpaid work schemes continued to be rated ‘Good’.

Mr Russell said: “This inspection was cut short because of the lockdown. As such, we have not rated parts of this CRC’s work or given an overall rating. All probation services – including Hampshire & Isle of Wight CRC – have been under enormous pressure during the lockdown. Local leaders understand the problems faced by this CRC and, to their credit, they have communicated openly with staff. We hope the organisation continues to pull together and make further improvements.”

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

Why Be a Probation Officer?

A reflection on yesterday's NPS FAQ:-

'ambition, anticipation, hope, envisage, informed by, due to be, no current plans, yet to finalise, transforming'

And the grip of HMPPS is very much around probation's throat. This is my mash-up from the Q&A:

"The benefit of these reforms is that it gives us more control of probation services. The reform programme is still finalising the target operating model and the design [which will be] informed by market and stakeholder engagement. Following the staff assignment process, we will reach a position to clarify plans [and] existing NPS staff will be impacted to a greater or lesser degree by the transfer of staff from current providers in 2021."

TR2 is here. Brace yourself.

--oo00oo--

The whole thing certainly depressed me and many others I suspect, containing as it does gems such as:-

"The NPS is suffering from low morale. There are recruitment problems." 

"The benefit of these reforms is that it gives us more control of probation services."

Filled with caveats and mealy-mouthed statements such as "We are currently looking at our vetting policies", it's pretty clear what the future holds under the dead hand of civil service command and control. A lot of people are not going to get through vetting and many wouldn't want to. Unless I've missed it, there doesn't seem to be any mention of volunteers, always a key aspect of the probation ethos right from the beginning and helping to ensure a diverse workforce. If starting out now, would I want to become a probation officer? No, absolutely not!

--oo00oo--

As if to underline things, yesterday's HMI report on NPS in the North West confirmed:- "There is a national shortage of POs". Now I wonder why that is? When is anyone going to join the bloody dots up and recognise that the probation service we are now rapidly moving towards is really not worthy of the name and the 'strong and effective leadership' have simply lost the plot. I suspect there are going to be many more similar reports confirming all the classic hallmarks of civil service bureaucracy:-

"There are important areas where the division relies on the central functions provided by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the Ministry of Justice. When these functions do not work well, this has a negative impact on the division’s ability to deliver a high-quality service. The national training team has insufficient resources to deliver mandatory training in child and adult safeguarding and several buildings in the division remain in a poor condition. While the governance of the Ministry of Justice’s contract for centrally managed facilities has been strengthened, the priority given to repairs and the length of time taken to complete work still falls short of requirements."

Foreword

This is the first in our second round of inspections of the National Probation Service (NPS) against the new set of standards we launched in 2018. We previously inspected the North West NPS division in October 2018. The overall rating for this NPS division remains as ‘Good’. 

We found experienced, enthusiastic leaders, focused on providing a high-quality service. There has been an increased focus on staff engagement, wellbeing and building resilience. Although leaders have tried to mitigate the stress of high workloads, they remain high for too many probation officers (POs). Thirty per cent of POs have a workload of over 110 per cent, as measured by the NPS workload management tool. 

There is a national shortage of POs, and when we last inspected the division it had a 20 per cent shortfall for all staff. We commend the division for its commitment to recruiting 153 individuals to undertake the Professional Qualification in Probation. In April 2020, the division became fully staffed for all grades, for the first time since Transforming Rehabilitation. 

Stakeholder engagement is good. The division’s approach to ensuring that it provides services that address the needs of those subject to supervision is encouraging. Effective partnership work has enabled several local co-commissioned projects to address areas linked to offending. Access to services in some rural areas is more limited. 

We found that pre-sentence reports assisted judges and magistrates in deciding on the most appropriate sentence. Individuals under probation supervision were adequately involved in planning and delivering their sentences. Assessments identified and analysed offending-related factors, and sentence plans were sufficiently focused on keeping others safe. Supervision started promptly. The service provided to victims who had opted into the victim contact scheme was good. 

There were shortfalls. Some elements of practice were not as good as we found in our previous inspection. Safeguarding information was not consistently requested from police and local authorities. In too many instances, supervision was not sufficiently focused on addressing factors related to offending. We encourage the division to continue to invest in staff professional development to drive improvement. 

There are important areas where the division relies on the central functions provided by Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and the Ministry of Justice. When these functions do not work well, this has a negative impact on the division’s ability to deliver a high-quality service. The national training team has insufficient resources to deliver mandatory training in child and adult safeguarding and several buildings in the division remain in a poor condition. While the governance of the Ministry of Justice’s contract for centrally managed facilities has been strengthened, the priority given to repairs and the length of time taken to complete work still falls short of requirements. 

Justin Russell 

Chief Inspector of Probation

All Your Questions Answered

This is a long read from NPS, but we all know the devil is always in the detail:-    

Frequently Asked Questions 

Last Updated: 30th June 2020 

What investment is the NPS promising for Unpaid Work and Interventions now that the Probation Delivery Partner competition has been cancelled? 

The ambition for investment in these services remains unchanged – the anticipated overall level of funding, desire to learn from current operating models, build good practice into the new operating model and encourage innovation will be the same. 

What will happen to Through The Gate staff and services? 

Delivery of Through the Gate services will transfer to the NPS and providers who are awarded contracts through the Dynamic Framework competition. The majority of CRC staff currently delivering Through the Gate in prisons will transfer to the NPS, and some will transfer to Dynamic Framework providers based on the specific type of work they do. If you work in Through The Gate services, your current employer will assess where you are assigned in the future delivery model by using the definitions of the future services provided by the Probation Reform Programme. 

Will Community Payback managers be expected to supervise more staff as the blueprint mentions standalone orders being held in the UPW team? 

The Probation Reform Programme is currently designing the delivery model for Unpaid Work, working with the Workforce Programme on staff requirements. Further detail will be shared once the design work is complete. 

Staff are concerned roles will be re-banded after moving into the NPS. Will any changes to job roles/bands follow a consultation process with individuals consulted? 

Staff and Trade Unions will be kept informed of post-transfer change proposals and we will consult as appropriate. 

Will there be an appeals process after staff have been told they are moving to the NPS or Dynamic Framework providers? 

As part of conversations due to start soon with current employers, we hope to agree timescales for the ‘assignment process’ which we envisage will have an appeals process. 

What will happen to staff on fixed term contracts in CRCs and their supply chains? 

The decision to extend or terminate fixed term contracts is one for your current employer to make. Please contact your relevant manager/HR department to discuss this. 

Will staff who are ex-service users and/or have previous convictions be able to retain their employment and transfer to the NPS and Dynamic Framework providers? 

We are currently looking at our vetting policies and how they might apply to all transferring staff including those who are ex-service users. Our focus is to ensure consistent and appropriate policies are applied to all transferring staff and meet the needs of the NPS under the unified model. More information will be made available to transferring staff in due course. 

Where will restorative justice staff be transferred to? Will RJ be viewed as a structured intervention regarding attitudes thinking and behaviour and hence moved into the NPS?  

Current employers will consider where staff are assigned, and more information will be made available to transferring staff in due course. 

What are the rules on non-UK status employees in CRCs transferring into the NPS? 

The Civil Service Nationality rules apply to all staff working in the Civil Service. The rules include details about which individuals can work in the Civil Service if they do not have UK status. For more information, including accepted countries of origin please see the Nationality Rules page on gov.uk. All individuals who work in the UK must demonstrate that they have the right to do so. This is separate from the Nationality rules and the right to work in the UK which ordinarily will have been checked already by the current employer. As a future employer we have the right to check this information to ensure the NPS complies with current employment law.

DASAs (Domestic Abuse Support Workers DASAs (Domestic Abuse Support Workers whose work includes Partner Link work) are currently Band 4. Will that role change under the NPS as it has not previously had DASAs? 

There are no plans to change the Partner Link Worker role. 

Following the announcement that the Probation Delivery Partner contracts will not be progressed, what impact will this have on the role of the HMPPS Contract Management Teams? Also, will the bandings/Grading structures remain the same? 

The Probation Reform Programme is currently designing the future contract management model. The design work is taking account of PDP contracts not being progressed. There remains a need for central and regional contract management teams to manage Dynamic Framework contracts and support the use of the Regional Outcomes and Innovation Fund. Once this work has been completed, we will be able to provide more detail. 

What is the plan for CRC support staff who have roles that do not currently appear to fit within the NPS divisional structure? And how will this information be captured before June 2021? 

We are currently working through design elements of the plan. As this work progresses and following the staff assignment process, we will reach a position to clarify plans and share them with you. Any changes impacting staff will be discussed with key stakeholders, including current employers and trade union colleagues, and will also be explained in the forthcoming ‘measures statement’. 

Will the programmes timescales be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak? 

Reforming probation remains one of our top strategic priorities for the Criminal Justice System and the outbreak does not take away the need for us to stabilise and improve probation services. We would like to thank all our dedicated probation staff for their ongoing professionalism and commitment. The benefit of these reforms is that it gives us more control of probation services and allows us to streamline transition while giving us a critical measure of control over core services as we begin to recover from COVID-19. 

What are the probation reforms? 

Under the future model, all offender management services in England and Wales will sit within the NPS. We will develop a professional register, underpinned by ethical and training standards, and probation practitioners will receive the training, qualifications and professional recognition they need and deserve for a long and effective career. For more information, see the Draft Target Operating Model. 

Why are we reforming the probation system? 

We are changing the system to ensure that probation services are effective, the public is protected, and we can more easily respond to local demands. Under the reforms, each sector will play to its own strengths. The system will respond to the requirements of those it serves, informed by market and stakeholder engagement. 

What are the new probation regions?

There will be 12 probation regions across England and Wales. There are no changes in Wales but there will be 11 new regions in England. Each region will be led by a Regional Probation Director in England, and a HMPPS Director in Wales. These senior leaders will report into the wider HMPPS structures, reporting directly to Sonia Flynn, the Chief Probation Officer. 

Who are the leaders of the new probation regions? 

The Regional Probation Directors are: 

• Nic Davies (interim) for Wales 

• Andrea Bennett for North West 

• Chris Edwards for Greater Manchester 

• Bronwen Elphick for North East 

• Lynda Marginson for Yorkshire and The Humber 

• Sarah Chand for West Midlands 

• Martin Davies for East Midlands 

• Steve Johnson-Proctor for East of England 

• Kilvinder Vigurs for London 

• Angela Cossins for South West 

• Gabriel Amahwe for South Central 

• Mary Pilgrim for Kent, Surrey and Sussex. 

Will the model be the same in England and Wales? 

We are building on the new Wales model which creates a structure that adapts well to local needs. 

What will the regional structures look like? 

Each regional senior leadership team will consist of a: 

• Head of Operations 

• Head of Community Integration, Commissioning and Contract Management, 

• Head of Performance and Quality, and a Head of Corporate Services. 

This will ensure that Regional Probation Directors have the right capabilities and functions to fulfil their responsibilities across their regions. 

How will sentence management change? 

Sentence management in both England and Wales will be the responsibility of the NPS, along with accredited programmes, unpaid work, and structured interventions. Other interventions will be available to the NPS to meet rehabilitative and resettlement needs, delivered by providers through the Dynamic Framework. Cases will be managed according to the risk, need and sentence type. 

How will resettlement change? 

We have created an enhanced pre-release system. A community responsible officer will lead on all the pre-release activities, undertaking a comprehensive assessment and developing a sentence plan aligned to need, risk, and victim issues. This will increase to individuals prior to release during the final phase of prison, through to transition, and post-release. 

How will these reforms enhance public protection?

These changes will deliver a stronger, more stable probation system that will reduce reoffending, support victims of crime, and keep the public safe. With better continuity of supervision, we will improve offender monitoring, and our ability to react to sudden increases in risk, keep victims informed, and enforce licence conditions. Closer partnership such as working with police and crime commissioners and other partners will help us respond to local and regional problems. 

When will practical guidance setting out the purpose and expectations of post sentence supervision be provided by the programme? 

We anticipate being able to provide further detail on the approach to post sentence supervision in the final TOM and further detail will be set out in revised National Standards. 

Regarding the Target Operating Model consultation process, how will CRC staff be kept involved? Do they receive similar communications to the NPS? 

Following the formal programme consultation and initial draft Operating Blueprint, HMPPS has engaged with CRC chiefs and parent companies via the Probation Programme Consultative Forum, the PLG, CRC-focussed Design Authority sessions and various webinar events and regional transition deep dive sessions. In March, the ‘Probation Week’ tested staff confidence in the proposed model. As the design of the final target operating model continues, engagement with staff across the probation system will continue. 

How will accredited programmes change? 

Accredited programmes will be the intervention of choice with improved targeting and information sharing at Court stage. The NPS will identify all eligible cases and ensure the right suite of accredited programmes will be available. The NPS will still run the sex offending and extremism programmes and all other accredited programmes. 

How will unpaid work change? 

Unpaid work will start within 20 business days of sentence and be completed within 12 months, and individuals should not have to travel further than 90 minutes each way to their placements. If an order is unlikely to be completed within 12 months, the case will be returned to court for revocation and re-sentence, or for extension. The new model also allows for increased learning opportunities, with up to 20% of an order being allocated to education or training. 

What do we mean by structured interventions? 

Structured Interventions are non-accredited interventions delivered as part of a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, Release on Temporary Licence, Post Release Licence, or Post Sentence Supervision. They will address emotional management, attitudes, thinking and behaviour and domestic abuse, where individuals are not eligible or suitable to undertake Accredited Programmes. They will be based on the Correctional Services Advice and Accreditation Panel (CSAAP) principles for effective interventions, and approved by an HMPPS Effective Interventions Panel. 

How will treatment requirements change?

We have worked with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England, and Public Health England to develop a protocol, promoting greater use of community sentence treatment requirements. There have been pilots on five sites and we are working with stakeholders to ensure proposals can be aimed at treatment requirements which facilitate reduced reoffending. 

How will rehabilitative interventions change? 

More structured interventions will be delivered by the NPS, and more individually tailored interventions will be delivered by Dynamic Framework suppliers. We want interventions which meet the key needs of the probation caseload including to those living in rural areas, with clear outcomes appropriate for the individual. 

How will IT systems work in this model? 

We will invest in digital services, collecting the right data to effectively inform decisions. Services will be developed in accordance with the Government’s service standard, using newer digital technologies that better reflect the evolving needs of users and provide appropriate protection of personal data. We will ensure services always meet the minimum viable needs of users and seek to drive efficiencies and improvements across probation. 

Will there be disruption to IT? 

When delivering necessary changes and improvements, we will prioritise protecting business continuity and minimising disruption. We are deciding on the changes needed to support the future operating model and we are planning how to deliver them safely. 

Will staff and user data be protected during the changes? 

Security and data protection are paramount and will advise and govern the approach we take in the development and operation of our probation systems. We will use best practice and ensure compliance with legislation. 

Will these changes happen within the agreed timeframe? 

We have a dedicated transition planning team and will look closely at how we can de-risk the move over to the new model so that we avoid delays and disruption to service continuity. 

How will you protect staff and services during the transition? 

We are making these changes so that we can improve probation services and make sure there are enough staff to deliver a quality service. Maintaining business continuity is vital and we are working closely with trade unions and current employers to minimise disruption. 

What are the plans to renew and renovate probation buildings? 

The Probation Reform Programme’s National Estates Strategy aims to ensure all buildings meet the needs of our staff and service users, including refurbishments and some new buildings for our staff to work from. The strategy is due to be published soon.

When will staff know where they will be moving? 

The Probation Reform Programme will be discussing with current employers the time frame for staff moves. Current employers will assess where staff are assigned in the future model and staff will be advised accordingly. 

Will the NPS adopt some of the advances that have been made in CRCs in terms of assessment? 

The programme is keen to investigate the possibility of incorporating some of the CRC digital developments into the assessments and planning tools. 

Will we still be using Oasys? 

The intention is to continue using the Oasys platform. 

Having announced that you are ending CRC contracts early, why did you then extend them? 

When we announced plans for the new probation model in May 2019, we said that transition would occur in Spring 2021 and we have now settled on a specific date. Management of low and medium-risk offenders will pass from CRCs to HM Prison and Probation Service in June 2021, allowing time to implement these complex changes safely. 

Can CRC owners bid for the services we are outsourcing? 

In line with the Public Contracts Regulations (2015), all services can be bid for by any organisation, including CRC parent companies. 

How will quality be measured? 

The performance framework for the NPS will focus on quality and outcomes rather than processes. We are developing new quality measures for case management and for the delivery of accredited programmes, unpaid work and other interventions. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) will continue to oversee the quality of probation services and will set and review inspection standards. 

Will these changes level out pay between NPS and CRCs? 

Upon transfer (Staff Transfer Scheme or TUPE), contractual terms and conditions are protected, including pay. However, HMPPS is in ongoing negotiation and dialogue with National Trade Union colleagues about a potential National Agreement, which includes aligning terms and conditions for all CRC staff transferring to HMPPS (NPS). 

When will staff transfer from their current employers to the NPS? 

We anticipate a transfer of sentence management, senior attendance centre services and some interventions, including accredited programmes, unpaid work, and structured interventions, to HMPPS (the NPS) in June 2021. 

Will staff be made redundant in the NPS? 

Retaining skilled staff is a key priority. While we do not expect to make staff redundant, more work is needed before we can be clear either way. We will carefully review the current and future delivery models and consider where the system and process changes affect roles. We want to minimise any impact and would seek to avoid the need for redundancy wherever possible. If staff are displaced, we plan to pursue all redeployment options. We will continue to remain in regular conversation with your trade union representatives. 

Does the transition to a unified model affect pay and conditions for NPS staff? 

Pay and other terms and conditions for existing NPS staff will not change. 

Will I need to reapply for my job? 

It is too early to say what changes may be needed to deliver the outcomes of the consultation. Existing NPS staff will be impacted to a greater or lesser degree by the transfer of staff from current providers in 2021. We will not progress with any restructure until we have a clear understanding of future delivery arrangements. We will keep staff and trade unions informed as plans develop and we will consult on any proposed changes. 

Will I move workplace? 

All NPS staff are contracted to work from locations that are suited to their work. We do not envisage the majority of staff will need to move work location. We are currently analysing data and options to assess if current work locations can be maintained upon transfer and developing solutions for these situations. 

Will there be opportunities for voluntary early departure? 

There are no plans to run a centralised voluntary exit scheme at this time. 

What about my pension? 

There will be no changes to pension arrangements for current NPS staff. For staff transferring into the NPS, you will be able to join the Local Government Pension Scheme or the Civil Service Pension Scheme or other as appropriate depending on eligibility. 

Will qualified social workers keep their current roles when moved over to the NPS? If so, will there be any limitations or expectations? And if not, what will happen? 

The reform programme is currently finalising certain design aspects of the unified model and our approach to aligning current provider roles to the new model upon transfer. The Probation Workforce Programme is aware that some staff are likely to require additional training and qualifications to meet the requirements of statutory guidance for roles that require the PO qualification in the NPS. We will consult on the proposed plan in due course. 

How will staff in corporate function-type roles transfer into the NPS and into which grades/roles? 

The reform programme is still finalising the target operating model and the design. If staff in corporate service roles are assessed to be assigned to the transferring services, they will transfer to HMPPS (NPS). 

How will these changes impact my workload? 

We want to make workloads more manageable and to prevent overloading on any one part of the organisation. Future projections are now clearer and we will plan delivery designs that are more resilient to fluctuations in caseload volume. There will be many opportunities for staff, unions and stakeholders in England and Wales to take part in engagement and consultation events and to shape how it will operate and how it will affect staff. 

How will you improve staff workload and recruitment? 

We know that the workload for many probation officers is simply too high and the 800+ new probation officers currently in training will make a real difference. Along with successful recruitment campaigns, the probation reforms will make workloads across the service more manageable. 

There has been mention of how officers will be working, but what about changes to Admin functions? 

The programme has yet to finalise the future Target Operating Model and design. Once this work has been completed, we will be in a position to engage with you about the future design and any impact on administrative staff that are assigned to transfer to HMPPS (NPS). 

Will there be any changes to the way I work now? 

We want to continue improving probation services so we are seeking ideas on how to improve/change processes, such as improvements to IT and estates. But we are not planning any immediate changes to ways of working. The NPS is suffering from low morale. There are recruitment problems. 

Will more change exacerbate this? 

The professionalism and commitment of probation staff is critical to the effectiveness of probation services. We carried out a full consultation process, and those responses have influenced the proposed future model. An important part of our plans is to make sure that probation professionals receive greater recognition for their vital work. We see the proposed changes as positive for staff. 

What are you doing to improve NPS retention rates? 

We want probation practitioners to receive the enhanced training and recognition that will support a long and rewarding career. The planned package includes continual professional development, qualifications and professional recognition. We have also invested in clinical supervision for probation practitioners, to help deal with the mental and emotional stress of working closely with service users who have committed terrible crimes. 

Will there be development opportunities for PSOs? 

We are keen to explore how we support more of our excellent PSOs succeed in becoming Probation Officers and plan to pilot an internal progression route. 

What will the future of probation officer training be? 

We know that the Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) can be improved further and will be looking to develop apprenticeships as an alternative route to qualifying as a Probation Officer. 

How will I be able to develop my career within the NPS? 

We want to make it easier for you to move jobs within HMPPS and provide career pathways that enable us to both retain staff and encourage those who move across the justice system to return to the service with broader experience. 

What will change in terms of learning and development? 

We are transforming our model for learning and development for probation. This will enable us to comply with statutory requirements and to meet the significant additional learning demand created by our transition to a Unified Model and additional recruitment. It will provide a sustainable, modernised approach to learning and development - transitioning from a traditional approach that is overly reliant on face-to-face delivery by frontline staff and towards a more flexible approach that takes full advantage of available technology. Staff will have easy access to high quality, practical learning resources that address their concerns and support day-to-day tasks and there will be a clear route for commissioning learning and development. We will be seeking input from staff on how we design and deliver learning to meets their needs and the needs of the business in an efficient and dynamic way. 

Will you encourage BAME, LGBTQ+ and Disabled staff to join the staff networks and get the relevant support? 

All staff will be activity encouraged to join our existing staff networks and the induction will cover who these are and how you can get involved and make a difference.

Blame Game Latest

It's a shame Piers Morgan is on holiday until September because I'm sure he'd use rather more blunt language to describe what Sky News has confirmed; namely that the government were indeed fiddling the covid testing figures all along:-  

Coronavirus: Government quietly publishes figures which reveal it overstated number of people tested

The government was routinely overstating the total number of people who had been tested for COVID-19 by as many as 200,000 at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, according to new Sky News analysis. It follows a Sky News investigation into irregularities in how testing data was collected and compiled in the face of the outbreak.

In the wake of that story, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) published data showing the total number of people tested for the disease since January. It's the first time such data has been released since the second half of May. The revised data shows that the daily numbers provided at the time alongside the government's press conferences significantly overstated the number of people who had been tested for coronavirus.

For instance on 21 May, alongside the press conference given that day by Health Secretary Matt Hancock, the DHSC said that the number who had been tested had reached 2.06 million. The new data, posted quietly on the DHSC website yesterday, shows that by that stage only 1.6 million had been tested in England. Put alongside existing data from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the new, revised UK total is 1.8 million - around 200,000 short of the declared numbers in May.

On a weekly basis the numbers announced by government at the time were overstating the number of people being tested each week by around 20,000 - according to this newly-revised data. On 23 May the government stopped publishing testing data, which has been unavailable for England since then. It is the latest evidence of problems the UK has faced with double counting and data difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many remain concerned about the reliability of UK data, though in recent weeks the DHSC has begun to publish regular updates on how many people have been tested for the disease, and has attempted to follow the official statistics code of conduct. It has also reduced its estimate of the number of cases in the UK following further double counting.

A DHSC spokesperson said: 

"Throughout the pandemic we've been completely transparent about the data we collect and publish, and are always looking to improve our statistics - including on testing. "We have worked with the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Office for Statistics Regulation on our new approach to these publications and will continue to work closely with them as we develop these figures. "We have rapidly built, from scratch, a large-scale testing programme and can now provide a test to anybody who needs one. Over 11 million tests have been delivered so far and we have the capacity to carry out more than 300,000 tests per day - helping to curb the spread of the virus and save lives."

--oo00oo--

There will of course eventually be an Enquiry into the UK's dreadful handling of the Covid crisis and the government have been rehearsing and 'market-testing' a number of possibilities such as blaming the weather, experts and care home staff. The big one, and politically most risky, is to blame the NHS itself and sure enough the scene is being set with a bit of kite-flying reported by the Guardian:-

Boris Johnson plans radical shake-up of NHS in bid to regain more direct control

Boris Johnson is planning a radical and politically risky reorganisation of the NHS amid government frustration at the health service’s chief executive, Simon Stevens, the Guardian has learned. The prime minister has set up a taskforce to devise plans for how ministers can regain much of the direct control over the NHS they lost in 2012 under a controversial shake-up masterminded by Andrew Lansley, the then coalition government health secretary.

The prime minister’s health and social care taskforce – made up of senior civil servants and advisers from Downing Street, the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) – is drawing up proposals that would restrict NHS England’s operational independence and the freedom Stevens has to run the service. In the summer, the taskforce will present Johnson with a set of detailed options to achieve those goals, and that will be followed by a parliamentary bill to enact the proposals, it is understood.

“The options put forward to the prime minister will be about how the government can curb the powers of NHS England and increase the health secretary’s ‘powers of direction’ over it, so that he doesn’t have to try to persuade Simon Stevens to do something,” said a source with knowledge of the plans. “[The health secretary] Matt Hancock is frustrated [by] how limited his powers are and wants to get some of that back.”

The proposed NHS overhaul comes amid plans for other significant reforms, including to the universities system and the military. The coronavirus crisis and an 80-seat majority have made Johnson determined to act. There is ministerial frustration at the role some health agencies have played during the pandemic, notably Public Health England (PHE), and a desire to make permanent some recent changes in NHS working, such as different NHS bodies working closely together, and the huge increase in patients seeing their GP or hospital specialist by video or telephone.

Ministers are also keen to “clip Simon Stevens’ wings”, sources said. There is a widely held view in the government that he enjoys too much independence, and frustration that his arms-length relationship with the DHSC means that Hancock has to ask rather than order him to act. The Treasury in particular is irritated that NHS treatment waiting times continue to worsen, and many hospitals remain unable to balance their budgets, despite the service receiving record funding.

Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s chief adviser, is not a member of the taskforce but William Warr, his health adviser, is. It is chaired by a senior mandarin from the DHSC. Its remit also includes delivery of the array of NHS promises the prime minister made during last year’s election campaign.

The taskforce’s creation last month follows tension between NHS England and the health department over issues that have caused Johnson’s administration persistent problems, including testing of patients and NHS staff, and shortages of personal protective equipment. Sources close to the health secretary say he believes that Stevens has been “invisible” and unhelpful during the pandemic and is not accountable enough for problems such as patients’ long waits for care.

Under one option being discussed, ministers would use new NHS legislation to abolish the foundation trust status introduced by Tony Blair in the early 2000s, under which many hospitals in England enjoy considerable autonomy from Whitehall, as part of a drive to give the DHSC more control over the day-to-day running of the health service.

The taskforce is also examining whether to turn integrated care systems, which are currently voluntary groupings of NHS organisations within an area of England, into legal entities with annual budgets of billions of pounds and responsibility for tackling staff shortages and ensuring that the finances of its care providers do not go into the red. That would add dozens of powerful new bodies into the NHS’s already-crowded organisational architecture and raise difficult questions about the powers and responsibilities of individual hospitals and NHS England leaders.

The prospect of a radical restructuring of the health service has prompted warnings from experts that renewed upheaval could damage the government and destabilise the NHS. Richard Murray, the chief executive of the King’s Fund thinktank, said problems created by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 should caution ministers against a major overhaul.

“Any large-scale reorganisation of the NHS comes at a high price as they distract and disrupt the service and risk paralysing the system. The last major reorganisation came in the 2012 Lansley reforms. These proved hugely controversial for the coalition government but perhaps worse, they have not stood the test of time,” said Murray.

“The changes we see in the NHS now – towards better integration and working across the health and care system – have come despite the 2012 act, not because of it. They stand as a warning against large-scale change that tips the entire NHS into reorganising the deckchairs.”

A shake-up could create problems for Johnson, who has made support for the NHS a key part of his programme for government, Murray added. “To date, many of the promises the government has made – more nurses, GPs and other staff, a new building campaign – do confront the real challenges facing the NHS. On the contrary, while there is a case for targeted changes to legislation, no one asked for large-scale reform.”

The Conservative MP Dr Dan Poulter, a health minister in the coalition, said the 2012 act caused more problems than it solved. “It has resulted in health ministers now wielding little real control over the functioning of the NHS, and the Covid pandemic has crystallised the failure of many of the health system’s arms-length bodies to properly coordinate a rapid national response at a time of great crisis.

“The current structures are not fit for purpose as they focus on competition and not enough on the integrated approach to health and social care that is so badly needed by patients. We need to return to a more streamlined command and control structure for the health system that is more in keeping with [Nye] Bevan’s original vision for the NHS.”

But, he added, “whilst it may be needed, a radical overhaul of the NHS is also fraught with dangers. A focus on structural reorganisation could well result in a worsening of operational performance in the short term and would be all the more challenging during the current pandemic.”

At the request of the then prime minister, Theresa May, NHS England last year brought forward proposals to modernise the way it works, which were due to form the basis of an NHS bill. However, Johnson wants to take a bolder approach to reform than that contemplated by his predecessor.

Downing Street declined to discuss the taskforce or its plans for NHS reform. A spokesperson said: “This is pure speculation. As has been the case throughout the pandemic, our focus is on protecting the public, controlling the spread of the virus, and saving lives.”

NHS England declined to comment

What a Lovely Surprise!

This from BBC website on Thursday:-

G4S selected to run Wellingborough 'mega prison'

Private firm G4S has been selected as the preferred bidder to run a new "mega prison", the BBC understands. It is believed the contract to operate the jail in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, will be for 10 years at a cost of more than £300m.

The company has been told it has been chosen, but the contract has not been ratified and could be challenged. An official announcement on the prison, which will hold 1,600 male inmates, is expected over the next few weeks. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "The operator competition has not yet concluded. We will set out confirmed details in due course."

The decision comes as a surprise after G4S was stripped of its contract to run Birmingham Prison following a damning inspection report which said it was in a "state of crisis". The company also gave up running Medway secure training centre in Kent and Brook House immigration removal centre near Gatwick Airport after undercover filming by the BBC's Panorama programme showed inmates and detainees allegedly being mistreated.

However, G4S has been praised for its running of four prisons in England and Wales - Altcourse, Oakwood, Parc and Rye Hill. It is thought three other companies - Sodexo, Serco and MTC Novo - bid to run Wellingborough, which is costing £253m to build and is expected to open next year. A source with knowledge of the process said the G4S bid was not the "cheapest" but was regarded as of "higher quality" than the others.

Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said: "It is disappointing that public money is being squandered on expanding the prison estate; extremely disappointing that public money is being poured into the coffers of G4S. At a time when we need to invest in jobs and the nation's health, it is shameful to waste money on the profiteers of punishment."

Shadow justice secretary David Lammy said: "When G4S ran HMP Birmingham there had to be an emergency takeover by the government after reports of drug dealing, violence, squalid conditions and poor leadership. It highlighted many of the problems with privatisation in the justice system. Serious questions must now be asked about why the government plans to hand the company control of the new prison in Wellingborough."

Wellingborough MP Peter Bone said: "My concern would be to make sure that whoever runs it, runs it properly."

--oo00oo--

This from BBC website on Friday:-

G4S fined £44m by Serious Fraud Office over electronic tagging

Security firm G4S has been fined £44m by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) as part of an agreement that will see it avoid prosecution for overcharging the Ministry of Justice for the electronic tagging of offenders, some of whom had died. The SFO said G4S had accepted responsibility for three counts of fraud that were carried out in an effort to “dishonestly mislead” the government, in order to boost its profits.

Former justice minister Chris Grayling asked the SFO to investigate G4S and rival Serco in 2013, after a departmental review found they had overcharged for tracking the movements of people who had moved abroad, returned to prison, or died. G4S agreed to compensate the Ministry of Justice in 2014, reaching a settlement worth £121m. But it remained under investigation by the SFO until Friday, when it announced a deferred prosecution agreement, pending approval by a judge at a hearing scheduled for next Friday.

Under the terms of the agreement, G4S will pay a £38.5m penalty and £5.9m to cover the SFO’s costs. The company was given a 40% discount on its fine after co-operating with the SFO. It has also agreed to enforce new controls, including a programme of “corporate renewal” to prevent a repeat of the scandal, which took place within its G4S Care & Justice division.

“G4S Care & Justice repeatedly lied to the Ministry of Justice, profiting to the tune of millions of pounds and failing to provide the openness, transparency, and overall good corporate citizenship that UK taxpayers expect and deserve from companies entering into government contracts,” SFO director Lisa Osofsky said. “The terms of this deferred prosecution agreement will provide substantial oversight and assurance regarding G4S Care & Justice’s commitment to responsible corporate behaviour.”

G4S chief executive Ashley Almanza said: 

“The behaviour which resulted in the offences committed in 2011 and 2012 is completely counter to the group’s values and standards and is not tolerated within G4S. We have apologised to the UK government and implemented significant changes to people, policies, practices and controls, designed to ensure that our culture is underpinned by high ethical standards and that our business is always conducted in a manner which is consistent with our values. We have made significant progress in embedding these standards throughout the group and we are pleased that this has been acknowledged by the SFO and the UK government.”

The £44.4m in fines and costs takes the total paid out by outsourcing firms involved in the prisoner tagging scandal to more than £250m. Serco reached its own £22.9m agreement with the SFO last year, six years after repaying £68m to the Ministry of Justice. The SFO said its agreement with G4S was made possible by factors including the company’s disclosure of evidence and its “overall – albeit delayed – substantial cooperation” with the investigation.

--oo00oo--

In other dodgy-dealing - some would say corruption - news by HM Government, this from the Guardian:-  

Firm with links to Gove and Cummings given Covid-19 contract without open tender

The Cabinet Office has awarded an £840,000 contract to research public opinion about government policies to a company owned by two long-term associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings, without putting the work out for tender.

Public First, a small policy and research company in London, is run by James Frayne, whose work alongside Cummings – the prime minister’s senior adviser – dates back to a Eurosceptic campaign 20 years ago, and Rachel Wolf, a former adviser to Gove who co-wrote the Conservative party’s 2019 election manifesto.

The government justified the absence of a competitive tendering process, which would have enabled other companies to bid, under emergency regulations that allow services to be urgently commissioned in response to the Covid-19 crisis. However, the Cabinet Office’s public record states that portions of the work, which involved focus group research, related to Brexit rather than Covid-19, a joint investigation by the Guardian and openDemocracy has established.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said this was because of bookkeeping methods, and insisted that, contrary to government records, all the focus group research done by Public First was related to the pandemic. The Cabinet Office, where Gove is the minister responsible, initially commissioned Public First to carry out focus groups from 3 March, although no contract was put in place until 5 June.

Government work is legally required to be put out for competitive tender to ensure the best qualified company is appointed, unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as an unforeseen emergency. When a contract was finally produced on 5 June, it was made retrospective to cover the work done since 3 March. The Cabinet Office paid Public First £253,000 for the two projects listed as being Brexit-related and two more pieces of work done before the contract was put in place.

Public First was required to conduct focus groups “covering the general public and key sub-groups”, according to a Cabinet Office letter. The firm was required to provide the government with “topline reporting” of their findings on the same day, with fuller findings reported the following day. The deal also included “on-site resource to support No 10 communications” in the form of a Public First partner, Gabriel Milland, being seconded to Downing Street until 26 June. Milland was the head of communications at the Department for Education when Gove was the minister and Cummings was his political adviser.

The Cabinet Office said in the letter that it had commissioned the work from Public First for a total of £840,000 without any tender “due to unforeseeable consequences of the current Covid-19 pandemic”. According to further details published by the government under its transparency requirements, Public First was paid £58,000 on 18 March for its first focus group work, classed by the Cabinet Office as being for “Gov Comms EU Exit Prog”, then a further £75,000 on 20 March for work classed as “Insight and Evaluation”.

On 2 April, 10 days into lockdown and with increasing numbers of people dying from Covid-19, the Cabinet Office paid Public First £42,000 for work listed again as “EU Exit Comms”. The first payment for work listed as being coronavirus-related was on 27 May: £78,187.07. A total of £253,187.07 was paid to Public First before the contract was entered into on 5 June.

Whatever Happened to TTG?

Every probation officer that has ever been has known a very basic fact of life and that is nothing will work if someone doesn't have a settled place to live. It's not rocket science and during all the excitement of TR we all remember that TTG would supposedly deliver accommodation to every prison leaver. All bollocks of course, but Grayling promised it. 

It all makes me very angry because I know that under the old-style Probation Service regime, every Service developed housing projects often in partnership with a range of local organisations. This and much more was all destroyed by Grayling in the name of political ideology and the smoke and mirrors of TR and TTG.  

So here we are some seven years later, on the eve of yet another probation reorganisation and the latest HMI report confirms that many people leaving prison have nowhere to live:-

Foreword 

Having somewhere safe to live that one can call home is a basic human need. Without this it is difficult for probation to manage individuals safely or do effective rehabilitative work. Many individuals go into prison homeless and even more leave with nowhere to live; and the enhancement of Through the Gate services has yet to make any difference to the numbers in settled accommodation. The result is that those who are released homeless are significantly more likely to go on to reoffend and to return to prison. In the sample of cases we looked at, the proportion of service users recalled or resentenced to custody within 12 months of release was almost double for those without settled accommodation. There is currently no cross-government approach to housing offenders, which is needed to set accommodation in the context of a broader strategy to reduce reoffending. It is encouraging that Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has recently established a directorate to develop strategic work on accommodation, and we look forward to seeing improvements in service delivery. 

There are many barriers for individuals supervised by probation services to obtaining suitable, settled accommodation. These include a shortage of housing stock, delays in obtaining benefits, high up-front costs of renting, low priority on housing registers, insufficient support services, and providers who are averse to accommodating people with substantial criminal records. We were particularly disturbed by the high numbers of higher-risk prisoners being released into homelessness or unsettled accommodation. At least 22 per cent of NPS cases, by definition the highest risk individuals in the probation caseload, were released from prison without stable accommodation in 2018-2019 – equivalent to 6,515 individuals. And only 75 per cent of individuals supervised by the NPS were in settled accommodation 12 months after release.

Since the ending of the Supporting People programme, the availability of specialist supported accommodation and floating support services for offenders has greatly reduced. The scale of the challenge of assisting individuals to obtain and retain settled and suitable accommodation is huge, given the shortage of accommodation and the many barriers service users face, and requires considerable attention and resources in order to make progress. It also requires stronger partnerships at national and local levels to address the needs of homeless offenders. The separate structures of the National Probation Service (NPS) and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) have weakened partnership work at local level; there is now an opportunity with the forthcoming unified model of offender management to ensure that this is resourced appropriately. 

Many prisoners are released from prisons that are not local to where they have lived. Design of resettlement services should form a bridge between the accommodation services available in the community and the accommodation tasks that can be delivered in custody. Many of those released homeless are serving very short prison sentences and were homeless prior to sentence. They require accommodation with support either as an alternative to prison or immediately on release, commissioned nationally or in partnership with local authorities. Housing authorities are improving the advice and assistance given to the homeless; future probation commissioning should focus on expanding access to housing and support to enable individuals to settle in accommodation. 

We found a few examples of where CRCs had established innovative relationships with accommodation providers, expanding access to good-quality accommodation. There were also promising examples of the NPS co-commissioning accommodation and achieving successful outcomes. A strategic approach to identifying and building on effective practice in this area is needed.

Many service users felt that probation services were unable to help them with their accommodation problems. Probation practitioners lack specific training in housing legislation and guidance, and pathways for enabling individuals to progress into settled accommodation are unclear. Many service users commented on the poor quality of the accommodation or felt unsafe where they were placed. Guidance for practitioners is needed on acceptable standards for accommodation placements. Finding and keeping somewhere safe to live is emotionally draining. Knowledgeable practitioners, in association with homelessness services, can guide and support individuals as they make these difficult journeys, providing motivation and encouragement to enable individuals to succeed. 

Justin Russell 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

Thousands of high-risk offenders in UK 'freed into homelessness'

Thousands of high-risk convicted criminals, including those classed as violent and sexual offenders, were being released from prison in England into homelessness, increasing the likelihood of their reoffending, inspectors warned.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP) said in a report that it was “particularly disturbed” to find that at least 3,713 people supervised by the National Probation Service, which is responsible for high-risk offenders, had left prison and become homeless from 2018 to 2019. Ministry of Justice figures show 11,435 people were released from prison into homelessness in 2018-19, and 4,742 homeless people started community sentences in the same period. The inspectors said this widespread homelessness was jeopardising the rehabilitation of offenders.

The chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell, said the case of the serial rapist Joseph McCann highlighted the importance of appropriate housing for high-risk offenders. The probation services had been unable to find McCann a bed in approved premises on two occasions and he had ended up in unsuitable housing that did not facilitate close monitoring and management.

Russell said: “Many individuals are homeless when they enter prison and even more are when they leave. Individuals need a safe place to call home, it gives them a solid foundation on which to build crime-free lives. It is difficult for probation services to protect the public and support rehabilitation if individuals are not in stable accommodation. A stable address helps individuals to resettle back into the community, to find work, open a bank account, claim benefits and access local services.”

Russell has called for the Ministry of Justice, and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a national cross-government strategy addressing the housing needs of offenders.

In all, 116 offenders released from prison were studied for the inspection report on accommodation and support for adult offenders in the community and on release from prison in England. Twelve months later 17% were found to be still homeless and a further 15% remained in unsettled accommodation. For former prisoners released to settled accommodation, the number of those recalled or re-sentenced to custody was almost half that of those who did not have such accommodation upon release, the report said.

Many offender-specific schemes have closed or been merged with generic homelessness services where higher-risk individuals, such as those with convictions for sexual offences or arson, were less likely to be accepted, the inspectors said. The report warns of “many substantial barriers to obtaining settled accommodation” for offenders.

HMIP said that most offenders did not have priority on the housing register, and some were excluded because of previous behaviour, rent arrears, being classed as “intentionally homeless”, or being without a local connection, while some social housing providers excluded “risky” service users.

“Overwhelmingly, we heard from service users that homelessness is tough, it is mentally and physically draining, often coexisting with similarly draining issues such as substance misuse and mental ill-health. We heard how some find it easier to be in prison than navigate housing services following release,” the report says.

The shadow justice secretary, David Lammy, said: “By failing to provide adequate housing, the government is setting up former offenders to fail. It is inevitable that some released from prison will fall back into crime if they have no option but to live on the streets. This creates more victims of crime, as well as greater expense to the tax payer as they end up back in prison. To break the cycle of re-offence for former prisoners, the government urgently needs to address the housing crisis, as well as re-investing in a proper, publicly-funded probation service.”

The inspectors visited probation services in Northamptonshire, Cleveland, London, and Essex, across both publicly-run and privately-run providers.

Peter Dawson, director of the Prison Reform Trust, said: “No amount of good work in prison will achieve rehabilitation if the basics of support after release are ignored. If the government is serious about both rehabilitation and public protection it must take this opportunity to invest in a coherent plan. Spending billions on new prisons but peanuts on accommodation for the people they release is obviously futile.”

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Having a safe and secure place to live is a crucial factor in cutting reoffending, and the probation service works closely with councils to fulfil its duty to help prison leavers into stable accommodation. Since this review we have also introduced new teams dedicated to finding housing, are increasing spaces in approved premises, and our £6.4m pilot – part of the government’s rough sleeping strategy – has helped hundreds of offenders stay off the streets. We are also reviewing our referral process to help prevent homelessness.”