Become a Probation Officer?

HMPPS is pretty desperate to recruit and train 1,500 new Probation Officers, but you only have until April 16th to apply:- 

 
Applications for PQiP are now open

You can now apply for our trainee probation officer programme. Applications will close at 11.55pm on 16 April but we recommend starting your application as soon as you can, to allow plenty of time to complete it.

Apply now.

We held a webinar on 30 March ‘Becoming a probation officer – live Q&A’, where probation officers spoke about their experiences of the application process, PQiP training and their experiences in the role. You can re-watch this event here.

--oo00oo--

In addition to watching the video (watch on the web/join anonymously) any applicant might also want to take notice of the following that arrived overnight by email:-

Hi Jim,

I spent part of today reading the recruitment and retention policy put out by Ian Barrowman on the HMPPS homepage dated 01.04.21 in which they outline their concerns regarding difficulties recruiting to certain areas, (London and the South East) and their strategy to overcome this and other problems. They act as if they don’t understand why they have such difficulties and outline a schedule of interventions over coming years to investigate and remedy the situation. The five point plan makes no mention of the long running bugbears which constantly feature on this site:-

• Pay gets a one line mention despite over a decade of wage freezes
• More responsibility for less money is perfectly reasonable
• OASys and repetitive mind numbing petty bureaucracy doesn’t get a look in
• Workloads will be addressed some day soon
• Scapegoating via the SFO process is overlooked
• Bullying managers and the JFDI culture is clearly accepted because it is not criticised
• Outcomes of recent employment tribunals are disregarded
• Driving people back into offices despite government advice to work from home doesn’t warrant a mention

There is a drive to recruit 1500 more probation officers despite an acknowledgement that the current crop are hugely dissatisfied and no analysis as to why any one would want to bother.

What we do have is promises of jam tomorrow or maybe the next day or possibly the day after and a two year timeline to consider the situation. Oh, and no mention of discussing anything with NAPO because presumably their consent to anything/everything is taken for granted.

--oo00oo--

Postscript - No; No; No!

Normally I resist the temptation to comment early on with blog posts that contain external content because what I think isn't really the main purpose of this venture; I'd much rather hear what others think. But today's going to be an exception and especially now that I've watched the whole HMPPS webinar. Obviously highly-orchestrated and polished, it nevertheless confirmed what a bloody bureaucratic process it all is! Would it have given me encouragement and confidence to apply, especially if I had a disability or 'lived experience'? No! Was I convinced by what the CPO had to say? No! Was I convinced about a 'modern' probation service? No! Just sayin.

Crumbling Justice System

The new MoJ Permanent Secretary might feel there's much of a problem with her department, but a former Attorney General begs to differ. No doubt we all recall that one of the consequences of the Brexit shenanigans was a purging of decent 'one nation' Tories like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve. I notice the latter fired back at the weekend with a powerful piece in the Guardian:- 

I've seen how the UK justice system is crumbling. Why doesn't the government take action?

From decrepit court buildings to legal aid cuts, the service has been brought to its knees. And there’s little hope of change.

When I first started at the bar in the early 1980s, my practice was largely publicly funded by legal aid and much of it was crime and family work. I travelled across London and south-east England representing clients in crown, county and magistrates courts. Most of these buildings were Victorian and lacked the facilities to cope with the growing volume of criminal and civil cases.

But there were signs of change. At Maidstone, where I was a frequent visitor, the Queen came to open the new court centre. She spoke of how the provision of justice was the essential first “social service” provided by the state, and central to her coronation oath. The resident judge, John Streeter, had worked hard to get a building that could help deliver an effective justice system. There were many more courts; rooms for consultations with clients; and a bar mess, where, apart from being able to buy hot food, there was the privacy to get advice from colleagues and to resolve issues with one’s opponent. A couple of years after it opened, visiting officials of the Lord Chancellor’s Department were holding it up as an exemplar for the future, noting that it had a reputation for efficiency and high professional standards of delivery.

When I was attorney general from 2010 to 2014, I returned there on a visit to the Crown Prosecution Service and to see the judges. The contrast could not have been greater. The building looked tired and poorly maintained. There were water leaks. The facilities for advocates were largely gone, and with them much of the sense of purpose and camaraderie I remembered. The judges were no better off. Most had brought their lunch in plastic containers from home.

While it must be right that cuts in services have to start with things that will be seen as personal comforts, the state of that court and others I have seen since – and the general state of morale among judges, court staff, barristers and solicitors carrying out these areas of work – point to a major crisis in our justice system.

This can also be seen in the Prison Service, with its overcrowding and its inability to deliver effective rehabilitation regimes or control the spread of Covid. At its root are a series of decisions made by successive governments – going back over at least two decades – to either hold back on the increases enjoyed by other areas of public expenditure or, after the 2008 financial crisis, to cut the justice budget more deeply than anywhere else.

In real terms, the reduction in spending overall between 2010 and 2019 has been about 25%. Given that, in that time, the population of England and Wales has risen 7%, and the prison population has largely remained at over 80,000, any cuts to the criminal justice system were going to be hard to achieve. In the run-up to the 2010 election, the then justice secretary, Jack Straw, who I shadowed, could see the looming crisis and facilitated better pre-election briefings for me from civil servants than had been done before. They were sobering.

Yet at the time, much of the Conservative policy on prison reform, and trying to decrease prison numbers, was being diverted by the need to fight off a tabloid-inspired campaign to make us buy prison ships to cater for increasing prison numbers as a result of tougher sentencing. This policy was plainly incapable of delivering value for money. (I note that the new police, crime, sentencing and courts bill is about to pile more pressure on prison numbers.)

After 2010 the largest percentage of cuts fell on legal aid and the budget of the CPS, the latter of which came under my remit as attorney general. The CPS, under Keir Starmer’s leadership, responded very well in streamlining its operations and still maintaining conviction rates – helped by an unexpected downturn in the number of crown court trials.

But all efficiencies have their limits. When in 2013 we successfully persuaded the Treasury to impose a far smaller cut than what had been demanded, it was obvious that if this continued there would be problems, as became evident later with complaints about falling conviction rates and collapsing cases.

Yet the worst consequences come from the treatment of the legal aid paid to advocates and solicitors for their work. This was reduced from a total of almost £2.2bn in 2010 to £1.7bn by 2019. Despite trying to minimise the worst effects of these cuts, and a recent small budget increase, the blunt reality is that for most criminal and family related work, the earnings are now so low that any lawyer would think twice about choosing these fields as a career option.

I can think of no other professions where the remuneration rates have been almost static for 30 years. I was pleased as attorney general to champion pro bono (unpaid) work and schemes to deliver civil legal aid through law centres, but none of this can compensate for the cutbacks.

For the ordinary public who encounter the justice system, its growing inadequacies and delays – and the injustice that can flow from them – are real. Last month, the Secret Barrister spoke of a case of serious domestic violence first reported by his client, the alleged victim, in 2017. In large part because of cuts to the police, the CPS and the courts, and exacerbated by the pandemic, the case has still not been heard in court. In all this time the defendant – an allegedly violent, manipulative man – has remained free, and the complainant has been unable to move on with her life.

It is sometimes suggested that the cost of our common law justice system had become excessive by the standards of civil law western democracies. But this is not supported by the evidence: in 2016 the Netherlands was spending €689 (£585) per head on justice, and Denmark €338, compared with €150 here.

Most of the justice secretaries I have known have privately acknowledged that their department is systemically short of resources. But because of the way the Treasury and government operates, and the difficulty of showing financial effectiveness in an entirely demand-driven service with unpredictable fluctuations, those secretaries have resorted at best to damage limitation, and at worst to currying favour by volunteering cuts. There are seen to be few votes to gain for a successful justice system.

So I fear we are unlikely to see any significant change – though it is urgently needed to maintain the foundations of a civilised society. Far from being able to pride ourselves on the excellence of our system of justice, it is in danger of turning into a whited sepulchre: but as the external appearances are being maintained, few in government are noticing or appear bothered.

Meanwhile we should stop being surprised at the increasing stories about the failings of the system, because the reasons are obvious.

Dominic Grieve QC served as shadow home secretary from 2008 to 2009 and attorney general for England and Wales from 2010 to 2014

Charity Work

In September last year, Alice Dawnay, CEO of Switchback, addressed a New Philanthropic Capital virtual conference on 'What Probation Service reforms mean for charities', alongside HMI Justin Russell who had much of interest to say. I notice Lord Ramsbotham was in attendance and earnestly hope he will carry on with his work in keeping the probation ethos alive.

“What drives us at Switchback is making this system work. This is about behaviour change and building a system of challenge and opportunity that is going to work for the people in it. The starting point has to be the human beings at the heart. The system needs to be built around them; it has never worked to fit people around a payment structure.”

Not living in London, I wasn't aware of the Switchback charity and its work with young men leaving prison. Formed only some 12 years ago by Alice Dawnay, a beneficiary of a Churchill Travelling Fellowship, it won the 2019 prestigious Longford Prize and boasts some impressive solid gold backers:-  

The Goldsmiths’ Company Charity is proud to be supporting the Switchback Initiative.

Switchback is an award-winning charity helping young Londoners to find a way out of the justice system and make real-lasting change in their lives. By providing intensive one-to-one support either side of the prison gate alongside real-work training after release, they support 18-30 year-old men (Trainees) to build a stable life they can be proud of.

The Switchback model is centred on a meaningful relationship between Switchback Mentor and Trainee, beginning in prison and lasting as long as it takes. Switchback Mentors work with the same person in prison and in the community, offering them the continuity, support and opportunities they need to make positive change happen for themselves in the immediate and long term.

Switchback challenge and encourage Trainees to take control and build stability across all areas of life, spanning 10 Switchback Pathways from housing to health. By combining consistent 1-to-1 support with training in a real work environment, Switchback enable Trainees to make a fundamental shift in their mindset and lifestyle. And it works; Switchback Trainees are six times less likely to reoffend than other offenders (9% v’s 49%).

Building on 11 years of impact, Switchback work with others and share what they’ve learned to inspire change across the justice system and beyond.

Things Could Be Better

You're a Probation Officer, but utterly disillusioned with the inability to do the job as you would wish, shackled as a civil servant, drowning under stifling bureaucracy, together with a command and control ethos as part of HMPPS? Dream of finding somewhere you can be allowed to do the job but don't fancy the Falkland Islands or St Helena? Fancy a starting salary of £42,000? Then why not try Guernsey? You have until 19th April to get an application in:-

OVERVIEW OF POST: 

Probation Officers are the operational staff of the Probation Service having the one to one contact with offenders to assess, monitor and provide therapeutic interventions to reduce and manage offending behaviour. The main purpose of the post of Probation Officer is to:- 

• Provide the Courts with quality information and assessment to assist in sentencing decisions; 

• Supervise offenders in the community in order to reduce crime and so protect the public;

• Prepare prisoners for release and resettlement into the community; 

• Work with offenders and deliver interventions to address factors that increase their likelihood of re-offending, including attitudes, thinking and behaviour; 

• Manage high risk potentially dangerous offenders including violent and sexual offenders;

Given the nature of the work, the post requires flexible working which may include full or part time secondment to the Offender Management Unit at the Prison.

GOVERNANCE RESPONSIBILITIES / RELATIONSHIPS: 

Whilst Probation Officers have responsibility to manage their own workload, they will have regular supervision with a Senior Probation Officer. The post requires the successful establishment and maintenance of a number of key professional relationships, including within the Committee for Home Affairs, the Judiciary, Law Officers, Advocates, Prison, Police, Court staff and Child Services, as well as within the Probation team. Close links are also maintained with local voluntary and partner agencies that have a role to play in the management of offenders, victims and witnesses. 

MAIN AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY: 

• To assess individuals' offending behaviour, develop proposals for sentences and prepare reports to advise the Courts on criminogenic profiles of offenders, interventions required to reduce likelihood of re-offending, and the management of risk. 

• To represent the Service in criminal Courts and give advice to the Courts as requested.

• To supervise, manage and enforce supervision orders imposed by the Courts to reduce offending behaviour and protect the public. 

• To enable offenders (in the prison and the community) to develop strategies for changing their offending behaviour by co-ordinating and delivering cognitive behavioural and other interventions to reduce offending behaviour, including in areas such as Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse, Sexual and Violent offending and substance misuse. 

• To take the lead in the management of potentially dangerous sexual and violent offenders through the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) system in partnership with Senior Officers of Police, Prison, and other statutory and non-statutory bodies. 

• To implement and monitor rehabilitation and resettlement plans for prisoners; to enforce compliance with post custodial supervision requirements and manage risk for the protection of the community. This will include the provision of reports, assessments and recommendations to the Parole Review Committee regarding suitability for early release. 

• To provide specialist information and peer supervision on areas of specialism such as mentally disordered offenders, young offenders, sexual or violent offenders and intimate partner violent and abuse perpetrators. 

• To demonstrate defensible decision making in management of offenders, and evidence such through maintenance of comprehensive assessments and records. 

• To contact victims of serious crime in line with Victim Contact legislation and guidance. 

• To develop and sustain effective working relationships with staff, within and out with the Probation Service, with the primary aim of reducing re-offending and protecting the public. 

KEY CRITERIA: ESSENTIAL 

1. Relevant Professional Qualification (i.e. Degree level Dip. SW, Probation Qualification, or CQSW) with a willingness to undergo and pass Criminal Justice/Probation modular study if deemed necessary. 

2. Proven interpersonal and communication skills with the ability to form and promote mutually respectful working relationships with Courts, clients, staff and other agencies. 

3. Report writing skills with experience in providing analysis of offending behaviour, risk assessment, and making recommendations for interventions. 

4. Ability to formulate, implement, review, and enforce sentence and supervision planning in prison and in the community. 

5. Evidence of the ability to motivate and encourage offenders, and to deliver offending behaviour work to reduce risk of further offending. 

6. Proven knowledge and expertise in assessment and management of risk and ability to take the lead in the management of potentially dangerous, sexual, and violent offenders. 

7. Ability to demonstrate defensible decision making in the management of offenders and evidence same through comprehensive record keeping. 

8. Ability to work to a high standard with minimal guidance, as well as part of a team to ensure organisational targets are met. 

9. Evidence of good IT skills including experience of using Microsoft Office products and client databases. 

DESIRABLE 

10. A working knowledge of legislation under which the Service has statutory responsibilities.

Antidote to a Scary World 3

"When was the last time you actually ‘published’ or even tweeted about anything remotely positive ‘Jim’? Happy to contribute but you need to drop the shit cloud image first."

For many people of a certain age, mostly men it has to be said, the age of steam holds a particular fascination. With the end of Covid restrictions in sight and the weather improving, thoughts are naturally beginning to turn once more to the delights that can be found by retreating into the past. 

With impeccable timing, an extremely enterprising group of videographers based on the Great Central Railway have created the third in a series of monochrome videos in the spirit of those wonderful British Transport Films of yesteryear produced by Edgar Anstey. For those unaware, it could have been crafted 60 years ago, not a week last Wednesday.   

I'll just mention in passing that the GCR is no ordinary heritage steam railway being the only UK example of a preserved former Main Line, double-tracked and capable of line speeds of 60mph.    

Quorn and Woodhouse Station 

"Station People" is a film made during the third nation lockdown in early 2021 utilising pre-existing film owing to the inability go out and obtain new footage. "Station People" features mainly unused clips from our previous film "This is Quorn" but these have been interspersed with some previously seen and turned into an entirely new narrative. 

In the week that Quorn & Woodhouse marks the anniversary of its closure, this film takes a humorous slant on the characters that might have been found at a country railway station in its pre-preservation heyday, at a time when many of us are unable to be together to enjoy our hobby. 

We are grateful for those additional photographic contributors who allowed us to use their footage for the making of this film. Ask a young boy what he wants to be when he grows up and he'll probably reply an engine driver, for the romance of the steam locomotive for many is unsurpassed, however, there are many more places on the railway where this enchantment can be found, as, with an entirely new narrative, "Station People" aims to tell.

We are all looking forward at getting back to the station, particularly to start work on the next film, watch this space.

Whole Systems Approach?

I find offender management in custody to be such an odd concept if the purpose improving outcomes for release. Although billed as a "whole systems approach to resettlement", there is nothing "whole systems" about the way this endeavour was named i.e. management in custody. For me, they lost the probation "buy in" right from the start by choosing both the phrases "offender management" and "in custody".

There always was an "offender manager" or "offender supervisor" in custody so I'm just not sure what is supposed to be new about what goes on in custody - OMIC has removed, not added - taken AWAY the role of the community officer, or at least someone "out" of the prison to co-ordinate the sentence.

My experience of prisons over the years is they only see what is going on within their four walls - rightfully so. But it often took the oversight of someone external i..e myself, the community practitioner to look to other prisons and point out what the person needed existing in another prison elsewhere. While of course a consistent keyworker prison officer (rather than the old "personal officer" system, which changed depending on what wing the person was on) is a good thing...but I don't feel the service have ever told us what the benefits of taking away the community involvement/oversight is supposed to be? Maybe it is, maybe we're really not needed until the last few weeks before release - maybe this elusive research mentioned via Twister informs us that this relationship makes no difference to the person's community outcomes.

Of course, we all know that prisoners move prisons due to security concerns, overcrowding, or indeed to access interventions they need, or to be closer to family. The original offender management model was brought in precisely because prisoners were constantly moving from prison, to prison and each prison "started afresh" as if the past hadn't occurred.

OK so there's a handover? What experience have people already had of these supposed pre-release handovers and the inter-prison-transfer handovers that take place along the way?. Do these adequately enable the community PO to grasp a person's history and develop the relationship just at the moment you're about to tell them "oh, here's your licence conditions, and by the way, you're going to AP". Will the prison OM's be prepping the person for the release, these conditions and what to expect from day one, to adequately prepare them?

And what exactly is whole system about moving people to another resettlement prison shortly before their release, so that the "handover POM" doesn't actually know the person and therefore has nothing to handover? What is whole system about outsourcing "resettlement work" to private companies to do absolutely nothing about resettlement prior to release? And what is whole system about taking away the role of the prison OM in those crucial weeks prior to release?

Oh and has there been any communication that as part of the new national standards the community OM is expected see the person three times in that final resettlement phase? Has time been allocated for these increased prison visits, have videolink slots suddenly been massively increased for this evident increased demand or are people still finding it notoriously difficult to see people in custody?

I cant believe that I've heard about OMIC for years now, and still I feel I know very little about what it is, why it's happening and how this is going to affect myself let alone the people directly affected?

*****
Hang on I just don't get it - if OMIC is going live in open prisons, at what point does the community OM get allocated? Surely one of the main purposes of open prison is for the person to come out on ROTL - as was as the notoriously laborious ROTL approval process, who does that if the person isn't within the last few months of the sentence - who visits the family, builds those relationships, and sees the person while on ROTL, if there is no community OM to see? And if there is a community OM doing all these things then that's not OMIC is it, it's the status flipping quo!

******

This from the archives:-

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Latest From Napo 193

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

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

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

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

Same old, same old

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

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

OMiC dispute

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

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

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

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary

--oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier, Chief Probation Officer and Executive Director Women
HM Prison and Probation Service

12th August 2019

Dear Sonia,

Dispute re OMiC

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

Lack of Consultation

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

Broken assurances on staffing levels

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

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

SPO workloads

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

Change to agreement on the contracted out estate

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

Concerns about the model

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

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

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

No consultation on job losses

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

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

Yours sincerely

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary
KATIE LOMAS National Chair

---oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier reply letter 05.09.19

1st October 2019 

Dear Sonia, 

DISPUTE - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT IN CUSTODY (OMIC) 

Thank you for your reply of 5th September to our letter giving notice of dispute dated 12th August, which was the subject of a meeting at our Offices on 27th August. 

Whilst we welcomed the constructive discussion that took place between us, we nevertheless feel that certain aspects of your written response require some comment. 

Staffing Levels 

Having reflected carefully on the narrative that you have provided, Napo does not agree that the expected ratio for Prison based Probation Officers of ‘no more than 80 cases’ represents a safe workload. Here you reference the additional Case Management support that will be provided by Prison staff, but the genesis of this dispute is that Napo does not believe that prison staff (while no doubt being in possession of skillsets applicable to their core functions ) have the requisite experience in offender management and that the anticipated caseloads for Probation Officers within the custodial environment remain unsafe. We have consistently challenged the idea that the case management support model provides significant workload relief for the PO or PSO holding a case and this means that we have little confidence that such an arrangement would make managing such a high caseload safe. 

Additionally, Napo has some difficulty accepting that the three bespoke Community Hubs will be an effective work around in covering vacancies. Here we foresee large volumes of cases being managed remotely by practitioners where the likelihood of engaging directly with clients in the way that you have suggested is highly unlikely to occur. 

Unfortunately your letter is silent on the key issue of staffing in the community and we continue to pick up concerns from members that despite high vacancy rates in some areas staff are still being expected to move into the custody roles with no immediate plan to backfill them. Indeed you have admitted yourself that it is unlikely that Probation staffing levels will stabilise for at least another year leaving divisions struggling to manage such a significant organisational change. 

All of this leads us to say that we do not believe that all of this is in keeping with assurances we have been given on safe staffing levels. On that basis we seek a further and urgent review of the calculations which have given rise to the caseload forecast. 

SPO Workloads 

We generally welcome the narrative that you have provided in respect of our concerns and we look forward to engaging with your OMiC Team to explore how best we can construct the SPO Survey that you have agreed to launch. 

‘For Profit’ Prisons 

Napo has long held the view that OM supervision in these establishments is well below the standards that we would expect. Napo does not believe that the CMS model will offer suitable workload relief for Probation Officers to oversee High Risk cases for the reasons outlined above. This plan also goes against the original assurance given in response to our representations about “For Profit” prisons. 

Continuity of Offender Manager 

The Offender Management in Custody model builds in an inconsistency in client – worker relationship that we seek to avoid in other circumstances. In fact part of the rationale for the integration of offender management out of CRCs and into the NPS is to create fewer changes of worker in the system. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the OMiC model is cheaper than properly resourcing end to end offender management. While most will welcome the increases to prison staff resources and the renewed focus on rehabilitation in custody the reality is that the proposed model requires fewer reviews of the sentence plan during the custodial phase of the sentence (moving from annual to biennial or triennial dependent on the length of sentence) and only mandates monthly contact between offender manager and client for high risk cases and only quarterly contact with the client in low risk cases. While this may appear to be more than the current model for offender manager contact it is less contact than most clients experience from the combined team of offender manager based in the community and the offender supervisor based in custody. Closer examination of the model reveals that decisions have been made in terms of resourcing that assume shorter times to complete various tasks including OASys assessments which will lead to higher caseloads for staff undertaking the Offender Manager role. While the mandatory contact and review of sentence plan demand may be lower than before this will place intense pressure on staff working in custody. 

Women in Custody 

We welcome the commitment to change the descriptive language as described in the OMIC model and will work closely with your team on the issues that we have raised. 

Reassurance about no redundancies 

Whilst we acknowledge the pledge for there to be no redundancies under the OMIC transition, we feel that you have failed to acknowledge the fact that NPS vacancies are being filled by prison staff whom we feel are under qualified for the role that they are going to be asked to undertake. 

Again, and linked to our concerns above, Napo believe that we need a joint review to identify the exact staffing need under the proposed OMIC Operational model in order to give staff confidence that it is fit for purpose. 

We look forward to another opportunity to try and resolve these issues and hope that we can arrive at position which provides confidence to our members that their concerns are being taken seriously by the employer. 

Yours sincerely 

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary

KATIE LOMAS National Chair

--oo00oo--

There is reference to the matter dated 26/06/2020:-

OMiC update

Our regular meetings with members of the OMiC Board have resumed now that we are working towards recovery and some of the staff who were seconded out of the OMiC project will be returning to it. A final draft of the OMiC recovery EDM will be shared shortly for our final opportunity to consult on it but this week’s meeting was a useful opportunity to raise some of the issues that have really been highlighted by the Covid-19 crisis.

SPO line management arrangements

While the move to formal line management of prison SPOs by the Governor has not yet happened informal management arrangements most certainly are in place and there have been examples of tensions between the NPS approach to exceptional delivery and the prison service approach placing prison SPOs in an almost impossible situation. We have supported manager members to address these issues and in some cases escalated them to ensure that SPOs have the right level of support from their division in implementing the EDM and the NPS guidance on social distancing, hygiene and PPE that underpins the protection of health and safety during the crisis. We have insisted that these issues be taken into consideration as we resume discussions about the line management of the prison SPOs. For now issues should be raised locally via the divisional implementation board and if necessary referred to Katie Lomas.

The approach to recovery

Once the EDM is published each prison will develop a regime recovery management plan (RRMP) and local reps, both Napo and POA must be involved in consultation on this along with the associated Health and Safety risk assessments for the OMU and related activities. As reported earlier in the week Napo and the POA have agreed to work collaboratively on this and where there is no Napo H&S rep in the prison local branch reps will be able to liaise with the POA H&S rep and members working in the establishment.

--oo00oo--

And the last reference appears to be here:-

Napo bulletin 7 August 2020

Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) and Prison Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs)

The OMiC implementation consultation has re-started following a pause due to the deployment of some project staff to frontline roles. The main focus of initial discussions has been the return to workplaces and the changes to EDMs for the prison OMUs. Napo health and safety reps in the local branch should be consulted on the OMU EDM and risk assessment as well as the EDM and risk assessment for any related functions that will involve Probation staff. Any members working in prisons should make sure EDMs and risk assessments have involved consultation with them and local health and safety reps and ask for a review if they haven’t.

The overarching advice remains the same for NPS staff working in prisons as for other workplaces, if you are able to work at home you should do so. There were examples as we moved into lockdown of some resistance to this in some prisons, if any members are experiencing difficulties in following this advice they should liaise with local reps to raise this first with the Head of Stakeholder Engagement and refer to Katie Lomas for escalation if this is not successful.

At the same time as discussing the return to workplaces we have also continued to raise issues about the OMiC model, workloads, lack of admin support and issues with the prison SPO role. We will be getting a full report back on the issues raised at our next meeting with the OMiC team.

A Bit of Twitter

We all know Twitter is somewhat limited in it's ability to be informative and useful, but it is of course a favoured route by which organisations like to push some PR messages. Sometimes, just sometimes, the kernel of a debate can start. This from yesterday, 31st March 2021, began with a typical bit of HMPPS PR puff:-

We are pleased to announce that the OMIC model goes live today in male open prisons. The start of a journey to enhance relationships by taking a whole systems approach to effective and safe resettlement. A significant achievement by HMPPS colleagues during challenging times. omic@hmpps

OMiC is not evidence based and in fact goes against evidence that puts the relationship of client and probation as a priority. This new model will mean even less consistency in probation officer, poorer relationships and have a negative impact on clients pre release. Tania Bassett Napo

Surprised to read your comments and very happy to arrange a catch-up to brief NAPO on the OMiC research. omic@ hmpps

Thank you. I think we already have it but if you can email it to me that would be great. Napo has never hidden it's views on OMiC. There are well known in HMPPS. Tania Bassett Napo

We are having monthly meetings with the OMIC team and have been feeding back since at least 2017 to my knowledge about our concerns in terms of the model. We welcome keyworking but not the inbuilt inconsistency in terms of relationship with probation officer. Katie Lomas Napo

OMiC is awful. Trying to build a relationship in a short period of time undermines the whole sentence process. It certainly does not put the sentenced individual at the centre of the process to seek long-term positive change. Still a PO

What OMiC did do however was take away those cases that gave OMs a bit of breathing space and replace them with a caseload of people who need 100% attention all of the time. This was not reflected in the WMT but increased and stress for OMs and the risk of burnout. Mrs P

Perhaps although we are not hearing that on the front line. However, policy should be evidenced based not reactionary to a staffing issue caused by a previous failed policy. Tania Bassett Napo

Let me assure you, it is talked about on the front line. SJ

It certainly was when I was on the front line as a PO up until December 2020!! Mrs P

It is being raised with the OMIC team and with the team dealing with workloads issues! Katie Lomas Napo

We don’t want Omic. Forced on probation staff by those who don’t know a piss about our work Dave

I’m not sure who you are referring to Dave. Our Chief Probation Officer & I do understand Probation work Dave. And I truly believe that OMiC has already made a positive difference to those in prison with much more benefits to come. Angela Cossins Regional Probation Director NPS South West, HMPPS. National lead for NPS work in prisons, the Parole Board & for Resettlement

I am so proud of all that has been achieved. A huge thanks to the team and colleagues in prisons and probation who have worked with dedication to enable us to reach this important milestone! Zoe HMPPS Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) Project.

You, team @omichmpps & all the practitioners & managers in prison & Probation should be proud Zoe. I am confident that this will make a real & positive difference to those in prison & on license in the community. Angela Cossins

News Roundup March 2021

As we know, there's absolutely nothing to see at the MoJ, but here's what the Justice Select Committee had to say by way of Conclusions and Recommendations regarding the Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre affair:-

Introduction

1. The litany of inaction and what one inspector called “utter incompetence” at Rainsbrook year after year provides a cautionary tale of how badly an arms-length relationship between the Ministry of Justice as a client and MTC as the company hired to deliver on contract can fail to deliver basic standards of care to vulnerable children. (Paragraph 2)

2. We recognise that all prisons and other custodial institutions face additional pressures during the current covid-19 pandemic, but we do not consider those to be justification or excuse for the continued poor conditions at Rainsbrook and the repeated absence of effective action to remedy them by staff employed by MTC at Rainsbrook and senior staff at the Ministry of Justice and Youth Custody Service. (Paragraph 9)

Inspectorate findings

3. Staffing at Rainsbrook was affected by covid-19, but so was the number of children at the centre, down to around half of capacity. The staff-to-child ratio was broadly unaffected and additional financial resource was provided to MTC by the Ministry of Justice. We cannot fathom why children were left in their cells for 23.5 hours a day after that practice had been identified and criticised and had supposedly ceased. Even more, we cannot understand why that fact went unnoticed and unaddressed by managers and monitors whose offices were two minutes’ walk from the children’s cells. It seems extraordinary that MTC managers and YCS monitors did not leave their offices to find out for themselves the condition in which the children in their care were kept. (Paragraph 22)

4. We are glad that new management is in place at MTC, particularly a new director on site and a new head of education, and that the YCS has taken steps to improve its on-site presence. We note the promises Mr Mulholland made to improve matters, but the experience of the inspectorates over the past 12 months has been that promises are worth less than the paper they are written on and we expect to see evidence of real change at Rainsbrook. We are concerned by Mr Mulholland’s statement that he plans to accept only recommendations “we think are fair or grounded” and recommend that he make a clear, public commitment to implementing the change the inspectorates, as independent external bodies, tell Rainsbrook to make unless there are clear, evidenced and transparently recorded reasons for doing otherwise in any specific case. (Paragraph 30)

5. High staff turnover experienced at Rainsbrook, has, without a doubt, contributed to the significant failings at the centre. Youth custodial institutions are vastly different to the adult estate, and require staff who have an understanding and experience of the environment they will be working in. While there is nothing wrong with staff moving across to the youth estate from the adult estate, it is not appropriate for these staff to operate as though they are in the adult estate. We recommend that the management at MTC set out clearly what they are doing to address the existing issue of staff retention, including what incentives and support they offer to staff. MTC should also set out what training is given to staff to ensure that staff are adequately skilled and equipped to work in the youth custodial estate. If consideration has not been given to this, MTC should set out what plans it has in place to ensure that staff are adequately trained and supported to work well in a youth custodial environment. (Paragraph 35)

6. The children held in secure institutions have committed often very serious crimes but also include some of the most vulnerable members of society. Those in detention at Rainsbrook were considered too vulnerable to be placed in Young Offender Institutions. The evidence we have heard is shocking; it is unacceptable to lock children in their cells twenty three-and-a-half hours a day, with limited meaningful social contact, a practice tantamount, as the three inspectorates rightly say, to placing them in solitary confinement. Whatever crimes they have committed, children—vulnerable children—deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and it is clear that this has not been so at Rainsbrook. (Paragraph 37)

7. It is a startling indictment of senior managers at MTC that the overwhelming majority of recommendations made by the joint inspectorates in February 2020 were not actioned. Those managers and the company appear largely to have ignored those recommendations until the Urgent Notification was invoked. A picture has been painted of a bureaucratic response built on managing the requirements of a contract, producing pieces of paper, and providing assurances that all was well when nothing was being done to make it so—even to the extent that the Secretary of State put his name in good faith to a letter saying that improvement was happening when it was not. An action plan without any action is pointless. MTC Managing Director Mr Mulholland told us he plans to accept only recommendations he thinks fair, a response that gives little confidence that the new management installed since Urgent Notification is demonstrating the necessary grip or understanding. (Paragraph 38)

8. We are not confident in MTC’s ability to deliver the action required by recommendations repeatedly made over a period of years by the three inspectorates. We recommend that MTC and the Youth Custody Service report to us by June 2021, setting out in detail what progress has been made against the action plan now developed. MTC should also set out what impact changes made have had on children at the centre. If no substantial improvement is then apparent, the Ministry should consider taking Rainsbrook back in house. (Paragraph 39)

9. It is clear that further work needs to be done on the way in which the prison service more generally responds to recommendations. It is important for all organisations that they are able to learn from external sources of assurance. Inspectorates have told us, in this and in other inquiries, that they repeatedly make the same recommendations over a sustained period without effective action resulting. This brings into question how seriously the prison service takes the recommendations made. The Ministry of Justice should set out in detail, what work they are doing to ensure that recommendations made by Inspectorates are taken seriously and acted upon quickly and effectively. (Paragraph 40)

Oversight of Rainsbrook STC

10. We welcome the implementation of a new assurance process. More is required than that, however, given what we have heard about action plans being written but not acted on. Those charged with overseeing previous assurances processes failed in the basic task of checking for themselves what was going on and we need greater confidence that a new process will improve upon the existing one. We recommend that MTC set out what their new assurance process is and how it differs from the one previously in existence. In particular, what practical steps will MTC take to ensure that its senior managers at the centre know, for themselves, whether improvements reported to them are real and long-lasting? We also recommend that the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Custody Service set out clearly what they will do to assess the provider’s new assurance processes to ensure that they are operating effectively, and to confirm, for themselves, that what they are being told is true. (Paragraph 51)

11. The Ministry of Justice, Youth Custody Service, HMPPS and MTC failed in their management and oversight of Rainsbrook STC, and the evidence suggests that, in varying degrees, that failure was not limited to one body. We are deeply concerned that processes in place to oversee Rainsbrook failed to fully safeguard children in the care of the establishment. We welcome work being done to address failings, but the issues identified here in poor leadership and oversight are not new and a greater sense of urgency is required. We welcome the independent review being carried out to understand what went wrong, directed by HMPPS, and recommend that HMPPS share its findings with the Committee and set out clearly what changes will be made to national oversight to ensure that HMPPS, YCS and MoJ have sufficient grip and oversight on all institutions, both contracted and public. (Paragraph 58)

12. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice review monitoring processes in place across the youth secure estate to ensure that robust central monitoring is in place. The Ministry should also set out how they intend to learn lessons from the failings at Rainsbrook, and ensure that the same mistakes are not made in the delivery of secure schools. (Paragraph 59)

13. Embedding YCS staff within the institutions whose performance they are monitoring is clearly good practice in principle but is not sufficient on its own. The Minister should consider having additional monitors travelling around sites, or a further form of independent monitoring. We recommend that the Ministry consider how it can manage the risk of its staff either failing to see what is happening or failing to challenge it. Whichever of those things happened at Rainsbrook, neither is acceptable. (Paragraph 60)

14. We are concerned that Ministry of Justice awarded MTC the maximum possible contract extension. Based on the evidence heard on 9 March, coupled with the inspectorates’ findings, it is clear that MTC have failed to fulfil a number of contractual obligations. The company clearly did not fulfil the requirement to “deliver a service that places Young People at its heart and considers their needs, wants and wishes at all stages of their stay at the STC”. While the difficulties of re-letting a contract and potentially changing a Secure Training Centre provider during the covid-19 pandemic may be considerable, there can be little justification for retaining the services of a badly under-performing contractor, and even less for giving them two more years of that contract. Notwithstanding the complications of letting a contract during a pandemic period, no one’s needs, and in particular the needs of some of our society’s most vulnerable children, should be placed second to administrative considerations. (Paragraph 68)

15. We seek a clear explanation of why the Ministry of Justice chose to extend MTC’s contract by two years when the contractor’s ability to deliver was already in question, and we ask what ministerial involvement there was in making that decision and, in particular, in signing it off. (Paragraph 69)

16. Consistently sub-standard performance of a contract does not merit renewal in any circumstances. We recommend that the Secretary of State urgently reviews whether his Ministry plans to renew any other contract or any contractor whose performance is similarly consistently poor. (Paragraph 70)

17. We are glad to hear the Secretary of State, Rt Hon. Robert Buckland QC MP, say “I absolutely take and hold accountability overall, which I am prepared to accept, and I do so in front of the Committee”. No-one likes, in his own phrase, being “played for a fool” and we appreciate his commitment to ensure that there are serious consequences in store should any attempt be made to mislead him or his Ministry again about what is being done at Rainsbrook. (Paragraph 72)

--oo00oo--

This from the BBC news website:-

A scheme to fit electronic tags on offenders to see if they are breaching court-ordered drinking bans is being rolled out across England.

The "sobriety tags" monitor a wearer's sweat levels every 30 minutes, and alert probation services if alcohol is detected. Offenders breaching their abstinence order can then be returned to court to face further sanctions. The scheme has been in operation across Wales since October. The government said more than 100 people have been tagged there since then, with offenders staying sober on over 95% of days monitored.

The rollout across England was meant to begin in late 2020, but has been delayed. Under the scheme, courts will be able to hand out "alcohol abstinence orders" to offenders who commit crimes fuelled by alcohol. These can require the offender to abstain from alcohol for up to four months and wear the electronic tag to monitor compliance.

Policing and Crime Minister Kit Malthouse said the tags were a "powerful new tool" to combat alcohol-fuelled violence and help steer offenders away from "bad habits". The tags can only be used with offenders over the age of 18, who are not dependent on alcohol or have certain medical conditions. The government says the tags can distinguish the difference between drinks and other types of alcohol - such as in hand sanitiser or perfume. The scheme has already been trialled in Humberside, Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire and London.

--oo00oo--

Hi Jim

Apologies for the random cheek of this request, but I wonder if you or any of your readers might be able to assist or put me in touch with someone else.

I was formerly employed by the Probation Service in Norwich (Norfolk and Suffolk Probation Trust) between 2005 and 2013. I was subject to a TUPE transfer in 2013 to a local charity and was TUPE’d once more in 2018 to another charity.

I am now in the position of either being redeployed as part of a restructure or being made redundant. My employer states I am still subject to my probation terms and conditions but has admitted they do not have a copy of the staff handbook or any relevant policies and have said I will not get any excess mileage if I remain and will get statutory redundancy pay if I leave.

I have tried speaking to the Norwich probation office but was told they no longer have an HR department on site. I contacted the Welsh service centre who explained they took over the HR function in 2017 so they cannot help either.

Unison aren’t willing to help as I’m not currently a member and although NAPO were kind enough to send some information it all relates to 2014 when the CRCs were created as prior to this apparently it was all by local agreement and they don’t hold records for NSPT.

I am really at a loss as to where to turn and am being pressed to make a decision over whether I wish to stay or be made redundant. Would you mind putting a shout out to see if any of your readers can help.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

--oo00oo--

Finally, I'm told that Monday's Nottingham Evening Post included reporting of the Inquest into the death of Janet Scott and calls for another PO head to roll. Many might feel this is another scapegoating exercise. Sonia Flynn is quoted as saying “standards falling well below what was expected, etc.“ The same words used in the Campbell Case.

Nothing To See Here

The transcripts of that Justice Select Committee hearing last week have been published and as you can see there's absolutely nothing to frighten the horses here - everything is just fine and dandy as far as probation is concerned:-

Q5 Chair: How are the changes to the operational model that you were talking about linked to it? 

Antonia Romeo: I mentioned that partly because you referred to the first change in that step, which is the appointment of Jo Farrar as second permanent secretary. This was partly about the focus on delivery in the Department. You mentioned, Chair, that I have returned to the Department after six years away. It is interesting seeing the changes in the focus, particularly at the top level. I want to make sure that we have the bandwidth to deliver what we need to deliver. 

One of the things that it made sense to do was to align and bring closer together our delivery on four of our agencies, namely, the Legal Aid Authority, CICA and OPG, as well as Jo maintaining her role as CEO of HMPPS. We are also looking through an operating model review at the work on both the relationship between HQ and our agencies, but also whether we have the bandwidth and how we are organised in the centre itself. We are doing a lot on commercial, projects, digital transformation and reform. There is a huge amount of policy work that we do. There is a lot of crucial risk management and commercial capability. I want to check that we have those organised in the right way. That is something that I am working on closely with Jo and the executive committee. 

Q6 Chair: Perhaps you can help me, and Dr Farrar can come in as well, by telling me what Dr Farrar is doing now as second permanent secretary that she was not doing before? What is different? What is the additional role, and how does that impact upon her role as chief exec of HMCTS? 

Antonia Romeo: I will let Jo answer that. Jo, do you want to comment? 

Jo Farrar: Of course. Immediately, I have taken over responsibility for the Legal Aid Agency, for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and for the Office of the Public Guardian. That is an addition to my workload. As the permanent secretary said, we are looking at the operating model, which will help us to clarify exactly what I will do going forward as second permanent secretary, what our whole executive team will be doing and how we will manage our senior people across the organisation. 

I keep the responsibility for CEO of HMPPS. I am delighted to do that. I believe we are taking the organisation forward and will want to be absolutely committed to continuing to do that. I also have a strong team in HMPPS, including two directors general, who are equally able to run large parts of the service and are doing so. As we move out of the Covid19 situation, which I have been heavily involved in, and as we bring probation together, there will be scope to do things a little differently but still have the complete focus that we have had previously. 

Q7 Chair: You have a major prison-building programme coming along. You have, as you say, a reunited system with probation. So you have two major pieces of work going on. How are you going to have the time to devote yourself effectively to heading that up and, at the same time, taking on these additional demands? 

Jo Farrar: We do have some major programmes. As the permanent secretary said, we are looking at governance of those programmes across the organisation. I very much see things such as our prison build programme across MOJ efforts. I believe it enhances my role to be the second permanent secretary and to be able to look across the piece at things such as prison buildings. We also have a number of other major programmes. I am confident that the SROs we have in place are able to deliver those programmes, but I am going to be making sure that we have capacity in the right places to continue to deliver at pace some of the changes that we need to do.

Q8 Chair: In any event, you will be spending less time on prisons and probation. 

Jo Farrar: I hope to be spending less time on Covid-19, which has taken up a huge amount of my time during the past year, which I believe will give me some additional capacity. As I say, we have a really strong team in HMPPS and across the MOJ. Part of the operating model review will be to make sure that we have the right senior capacity to be able to take forward all of these programmes. We are looking at quite a short timescale for completing that, probably over the next six weeks. After that, we will be able to let you have a bit more detail. 

Q9 Chair: One of our concerns as a Committee in the past has been whether or not HMPPS has an adequate sense of purpose and direction from the centre. It seemed to me that your appointment as chief executive was intended to give that. This seems to me, on the face of it, a dilution potentially of that, or a risk of such dilution. How is that to be achieved? 

Jo Farrar: I see it as an enhancement because it gives me a bigger role across the Ministry of Justice. It brings HMPPS right into the heart of the Ministry of Justice, and it makes sure it has the attention it deserves. Before I came, if you remember, there was one DG leading HMPPS. That has been significantly enhanced. We now have a chief executive plus two directors general. Having that extra capacity has allowed me to set a really strong direction as chief executive. As I said, I have a good senior leadership team, including two directors general, who are very able to take forward prisons and probation. Together, we will make sure that the direction is as focused as it has always been. 

Antonia Romeo: Could I add something on that, Chair? 

Chair: By all means, Ms Romeo. 

Antonia Romeo: Obviously, it is not unusual for an organisation of this size, which is one of the largest Departments in Whitehall, to have a second permanent secretary. You are right to identify that what is less usual is to have that person also be the chief executive of one of our biggest agencies, but that is part of the design. What we are looking to do is to ensure join-up. We recognise that neither within the Department nor, indeed, across the whole of the criminal justice system, for example, can we stand alone. 

I am keen to ensure that we are working across the Department. Jo already mentioned the prison build programme. This is the estates team and it is HMPPS. Part of the purpose of this is to have somebody above the excellent chief executives of the three other agencies, also the second permanent secretary, because it builds in that join-up. 

I want to let the Committee know that I have asked the other two directors general in HMPPS to join the executive committee, which was not previously the case. That brings an additional join-up. When the executive committee meet, as we do weekly—in fact, we met this morning—and Kevin, as chief executive of HMPPS is also present, we ensure that every important decision taken at the top of the organisation is made by those leading our biggest agencies as well as those leading HQ. That is part of what I know the Lord Chancellor wants the vision for the Department to be and I want to ensure that we are delivering for him a joined-up, seamless provision of services focused on a world-class justice system. 

Q10 Chair: I understand that. Prisons and probation are, perhaps, the biggest chunk of the Department’s spend and the biggest focus of attention. The Office of Public Guardian and the Legal Aid Agency are both very important, but not, from Dr Farrar’s point of view, the most obvious fit to align with prisons, are they? It is a bit counterintuitive to deal with something that is pretty much at the other end of the Department’s range of activities. Is there a reason for that? 

Antonia Romeo: It is partly that Jo has done a fantastic job as chief executive of HMPPS. These are very well-led organisations already. They were sitting alongside our functional CFO group, as we call it. James is here today as our interim CFO. It is partly about ensuring that that group has the freedom and bandwidth to focus on the support it is going to need to give the rest of the organisation for the significant transformation in change, be it digital, commercial and finance that we are overseeing as a Department. It was partly about that. Jo, obviously, has a great deal of expertise in delivery. These are smaller agencies but not agencies without risk, as you well know. Therefore, I thought it would be a good and sensible approach to bring them together. You are right that they are not necessarily exactly adjacent in the system that we run, but to me that is part of the benefit because it ensures even more join-up. 

Q11 Chair: Okay. In terms of the specifics, you think the new approach will aid delivery, so it is central to it. What are the specific gains you think you can get to deliver from this? What is the bandwidth? 

Antonia Romeo: Jo might want to comment on what she sees so far, bearing in mind that she is only on working day five.

---//--

Q66 Dr Mullan: We have focused a lot today on finances and the risks around finance and projections. I would like to talk a little bit about your approach and thinking around risk in terms of delivery, particularly beginning with the probation programme. It is a key and important area of reform going forward. What are the top risks from your perspective on the delivery of the next stage of probation reform? 

Antonia Romeo: Jo will also want to come in on this. There have been a number of lessons learnt from previous reforms on probation. There is the unification that will happen in June. One of the biggest risks with a programme like this is moving the whole thing at once, which is why we have been specifically de-risking on things like piloting first of all in Wales, which we have been doing for a year. We are ensuring that we are rolling out in advance as much as we can—and Jo will have some specifics on this—for example, things like putting out the laptops in certain places first. You do not do a big bang transformation where you go from a number of organisations into one. You sequence and in particular you test. That will be a very important part of de-risking the programme. 

Overall, the key thing about the programme is that it is not just a one-off event. It is really part of a three-year workforce strategy that is looking to increase capacity. Jo is seeking to recruit 1,500 more frontline staff next year and in subsequent years, and also to increase capability through qualifications and access to training. There is a long-term plan as well as the single moment, which, as I say, we are de-risking as a single moment in terms of creating the new programme. 

The final thing to say on risk is that some of this is about bringing back together. It is essentially a significant de-risk of what was considered and judged by Ministers to have been quite a risky position to have got into. In particular, what we are seeking to do, as you know, is to ensure that we learn some of the spirit of what drove previous reforms. Bringing innovation in and using the voluntary sector more effectively is something that is very much in front of mind in terms of this programme. Jo will want to add.

Jo Farrar: Thank you, Permanent Secretary. I will add a few things as a way of reassurance. The unification will absolutely happen in June. It is on track to deliver. It will deliver. Some reassurance we have had around that is that our plans have been tested by the IPA, the Independent Projects Authority, who have confirmed that they are viable plans. We have had an inspection by HMI Probation, which has confirmed that we are on track for delivery. Some of the things we might have wanted to do in advance such as ensure all training for people so that we can move more quickly to mixed case loads cannot happen because of Covid. Some of the training we will slow down. It will take us a bit longer to get to the position we had wanted to. However, all of the things that the Permanent Secretary mentioned that we can do in advance we have been doing; IT, buildings, making sure that our workforce plans are rigorous and in place have all happened in advance. I am very confident in our ability to deliver in June.

Q67 Dr Mullan: You have mentioned a couple of external approaches to monitoring your progress. Internally, what are your key methods of keeping it on track in these next few months? 

Jo Farrar: We have a strong governance programme that goes up right to the Permanent Secretary. We have some independent challenge on that. The Permanent Secretary mentioned earlier one of our nonexecutive directors. We also invited other people externally to challenge our programme. We also have individual programme management of some of the aspects, such as the workforce programme, to make sure that every part of the probation programme is on track to deliver. It is one thing that I monitor regularly as the chief executive. 

Q68 Dr Mullan: I am conscious of time so I will ask you to be really specific in the answer to this question. As to the trends on vacancies, retention and recruitment, rather than explaining what they are, could you limit yourself to saying where the problems might be looking at those trends? Is there anything that you are concerned about? 

Jo Farrar: There is nothing I am concerned about. Our retention at the moment is reasonably good. People are looking forward to coming together as a unified probation service. We have plans in place to recruit the 1,500 extra probation officers and we have a really good workforce programme. I have no real concerns about that. 

Q69 Dr Mullan: Moving on from probation.......... 

Takes Two To Tango

I saw this posted recently on the probation Facebook group page:-

"When I read this I feel even more concerned about the stultifying effect that being civil servants has upon the probation profession."

It was referring to the latest Academic Insight paper published by HM Probation Inspectorate entitled Needs Assessment : Risk, Desistance and Engagement. These papers have been published at regular intervals since the first in February 2019. To be honest, I'm not at all sure we've ever spent much time discussing them, but I suspect we should. As a taster, I was struck by this from the first:-

Fundamentally, as with the science of losing weight, the science of crime reduction is simply too difficult and frankly too weak for partisans on either side to declare a monopoly on useful evidence. Neither the ‘what works’ movement nor ‘desistance’ research is anywhere close to revealing the secret formula guaranteed to reduce crime (or lose weight), and never will. Human behaviour is simply too complex to be predictable in ways similar to the laws of physics or chemistry, and we should be thankful for that.

Anyway, these are snippets from the most recent:-

Foreword 

HM Inspectorate of Probation is committed to reviewing, developing and promoting the evidence base for high-quality probation and youth offending services. Academic Insights are aimed at all those with an interest in the evidence base. We commission leading academics to present their views on specific topics, assisting with informed debate and aiding understanding of what helps and what hinders probation and youth offending services. 

This report was kindly produced by Kevin Wong and Rachel Horan, recognising the importance of effective and robust assessment for planning and service delivery. The focus of the paper is upon the potential for improvements to assessment processes. The possibilities from integrating Risk-Needs-Responsivity and desistance principles are highlighted, while stressing that it is essential for such integration to provide additionality and avoid dilution (which should be subject to testing). Attention is then given to the role that assessment can play in facilitating effective engagement. Crucially, the assessment process itself can serve a purpose that goes beyond identifying the support an individual may require and what risks need to be considered. It offers opportunities for co-production, the demonstration of care, and the starting point for building a relationship. Within our inspections of probation services, we will continue to examine whether assessment focuses sufficiently on all the key areas of engagement, desistance and keeping other people safe.

Dr Robin Moore 

Head of Research

Introduction 

The Probation Inspectorate’s standard for the assessment of people with convictions is disarmingly simple. Posed through three ‘does what it says on the tin’ questions, they are: 

i. Does assessment focus sufficiently on engaging the service user? 

ii. Does assessment focus sufficiently on the factors linked to offending and desistance? 

iii. Does assessment focus sufficiently on keeping other people safe? 

(HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2019) 

These dimensions of assessment resonate with policy makers, researchers and practitioners in the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe. There is a general consensus that a responsive criminal justice process must start with an effective and robust assessment that guides intervention planning and rehabilitation for people with convictions (see among others, Canton, 2015; Moore, 2015; Council of Europe, 2010; McNeill and Weaver, 2010). 

This is particularly pertinent in England and Wales as the latest shake-up in probation fast approaches. The post-Transforming Rehabilitation delivery model will see the ‘unification’ of Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) staff with those from the National Probation Service (NPS) in June 2021 (HMPPS, 2021). In this bolstered national civil service, the Offender Assessment System (OASys), based on Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) principles (Bonta and Andrews, 2017), will be the default system for assessment. Of course, OASys was used by probation trusts prior to Transforming Rehabilitation and by the NPS and most CRCs so perhaps this is no great change. 

However, it is worth thinking about the assessment of people with convictions more broadly, as the ‘unified’ probation service won’t be alone in making assessments. As observed by Senior et al. (2016), probation services in their broadest sense span four major systems of social organisation which, in general terms, operate as follows: 

• probation staff as corrections workers 
• voluntary sector staff principally as welfare workers addressing criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs 
• public sector health and voluntary sector staff as treatment workers delivering drug and alcohol treatment (adapted from Harkin and Fitzgibbon, 2017) 
• the broader interaction between people with convictions and their communities, mediated in many instances via the voluntary sector.

The non-probation organisations will have their own assessment processes based on standardised and non-standardised tools. Is there an opportunity, in this latest shake-up for probation services, to make improvements to assessment processes across the piece? This paper aims to answer this question by focusing on two related issues: 

1. Is it possible to integrate the RNR model of rehabilitation (Bonta and Andrews, 2017) with desistance principles? 

2. What role can assessment play in facilitating the effective engagement of people with convictions? 

The paper concludes by considering how this learning can be applied by policy makers and practitioners.

---///---

Conclusion

How should the learning about the integration of RNR, good lives and desistance principles along with enabling effective engagement be taken forward through the Probation Reform Programme? 

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) have invested considerable intellectual effort and resources into developing and refining OASys; for confirmation, see Moore’s (2015) compendium of OASys research and analysis. Clearly OASys is not going to be abandoned in favour of another tool. Nor, arguably should the MoJ/HMPPS go down that route. Instead, there are a number of questions worthy of consideration: 

• Can the strengths-based approaches trialled in the EOC tool, incorporated into AssetPlus and other tools be incorporated into OASys itself without diluting its efficacy? 
• Could such an addition enhance its sentence planning function?
• Is there something to be gleaned from other innovations around assessment, sentence planning and case management trialled by CRCs during Transforming Rehabilitation? 

Also, what about the efficacy of the assessment tools used by non-probation agencies? It is neither proportionate nor logistically practical to expect these agencies to use tools that mirror the complexity of OASys. However, having a better understanding of the evidence base around RNR, good lives and desistance, and how this translates into assessment should help these agencies improve what they do and inform their choice of which validated tool they should use. 

As to engagement, no agency or individual is going to imagine that they do engagement badly. However, are there ways in which it could be improved? Rigorously and honestly reviewing their processes against the frameworks presented in this paper would be a good starting point. Feedback loops, rather than linear lines, are critical. 

It matters how each agency undertakes assessment and engagement. The assessment process, which occurs at the start or soon after an individual’s involvement with an agency, serves a purpose that goes beyond just finding out what support an individual may require and what risks need to be considered. In the ‘it takes two to tango’ process of engagement, it offers an opportunity for co-production, the demonstration of care, and the starting point for building a relationship. 

It is also worth considering that the supervisee is not ‘tangoing’ in isolation. They may well have more than one ‘partner’ at any one time. In addition to the probation supervisor, they may be engaging with a caseworker at a drugs agency and/or a mental health support worker. Additionally, they may well have a long history of past encounters with the same and other agencies. The research suggests that these experiences are likely to influence the individual’s desistance journey; the trick therefore is making each encounter count.