OMiC Not Working - Shock!

Listening to senior HMPPS management, you'd be forgiven for thinking everything is just ticking along nicely when viewed from HQ, but it will be interesting to see how they respond to the latest joint themed inspection of the flagship OMiC project. How long is it going to take for the penny to drop that this forced marriage between prison and probation is not going to work? Press release here:-

Offender Management in Custody model ‘simply not working’

A joint inspection led by HM Inspectorate of Probation, with HM Inspectorate of Prisons, has found Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) is falling well short of expected standards – calling for the model to be overhauled.

OMiC was introduced by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), in 2018, to improve the support offered prisoners as they leave custody and are reintegrated back into the local community, so as to reduce their risk of reoffending.

But the inspection found root-to-branch issues with the model: it is too complex and inflexible, there is a lack of understanding and implementation, ineffective communication, and poor outcomes for prisoners.

Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “The Offender Management in Custody model was an ambitious idea to better support prisoners back into the community. But however admirable its intentions, it is simply not working. We found staffing levels at crisis point in some prisons and probation regions, and levels of pre-release contact with prisoners that was sufficient to reduce re-offending in only a third of the cases we inspected. The model must be reviewed, and overhauled, at the earliest opportunity.

“Some individuals are leaving custody with no plans for where they will live, no identification documents and no access to financial support. Without access to these necessities, which we all take for granted, prison leavers are at risk of returning to crime and that is a threat to their local communities, the wider public, and a drain on resources.”

The main finding from this inspection was that OMiC is a lengthy and complex process, which neither prison nor probation officers or prisoners themselves fully understand how to implement. Furthermore, it is a fixed model that cannot be changed to adapt to different types of prisons, and this is especially difficult for local establishments where they have a high turnover of prisoners.

On a more positive note, the inspection did find that the transfer of Senior Probation Officers into prisons has helped to boost communication and develop rehabilitative cultures. However, regular meetings between keyworkers and prisoners took place in only 34 per cent of the cases we inspected, with only a slightly higher number (36 per cent) deemed to be supervised effectively by their prison-based probation officer. Communication between prison and probation staff was adequate in just 13 per cent of cases.

Mr Russell continued: “We spoke to prison and probation staff, and many told us they are trying to make OMiC work, but it is over-engineered and not fit for purpose. It is a model that may have worked in theory but is proving almost impossible to put into practice. It is understandable that there are tensions between services, and no surprise they are struggling to communicate with each other, and prisoners, and that the basics of the model are not being delivered. It is down to HMPPS to put this right.”

Chief Inspector of Prisons, Charlie Taylor, said: “This extremely concerning report shows the extent that OMiC is failing to achieve the aims for which it was designed. Services for prisoners remain fractured and sentence progression is often hampered by a lack of staff in Offender Management Units while the key work scheme, that was meant to be an integral part of OMiC, is not providing anything like the support that was envisaged, with officers being diverted to more general wing work.”

“The removal of Covid-19 restrictions provides an opportunity to look at this again and strengthen the way prisons and probation work together to help individuals to transform their lives and to better protect the public. We have made several recommendations, including a fundamental review of the role of probation Prison Offender Managers, that, if followed, I hope will help both prisons and probation to better achieve this aim.”

A summary of the findings from this inspection are as follows:

• We found shortfalls in public protection work, information sharing, and relationship building between prison staff, probation workers and prisoners.
• There is a distinct culture of two organisations, one prison and one probation, and joint working at a strategic and operational level is hampered by prison groups and probation regions being based in different geographical areas.
• Some keyworkers are providing valuable support, but the needs of prisoners in different types of establishment are not always catered for, and this causes problems on their release from prison.
• Some prisoners were being released without resettlement services being in place, made worse by probation unification and Covid-19.
• Successful implementation of OMiC requires a ‘rehabilitative culture’ in prisons, where there is space on prison wings for one-to-one interventions with prisoners to promote their rehabilitation, and this is not commonplace.
• Staff shortages are high in some regions, and this undermines the delivery of a high-quality service and keywork does not join up with offender management often enough.

--oo00oo--

Foreword 

The Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) model was implemented from April 2018 to coordinate an individual’s journey through custody and back into the community. The model was an ambitious attempt to put rehabilitation at the centre of custodial and post-release work to reduce reoffending and promote community integration. However, our joint inspection of 100 cases across eight prisons found that key components of the OMiC model are not working in practice and that delivery is falling well short of expectations. 

The model is fixed, complex and little understood. The needs of individuals in different types of prison are not always catered for, and this causes problems on their release from prison.

We found a distinct culture of two organisations, one prison and one probation, and joint working at a strategic and operational level is hampered by prison groups and probation regions being based in different geographical areas. Successful implementation of OMiC requires a ‘rehabilitative culture’ in prisons, where there is space on prison wings for one-to-one interventions with prisoners to promote their rehabilitation, and this is not commonplace. Governors have new and competing priorities, which often means that OMiC does not get the attention that it requires. 

Staff shortages are high in some prisons and probation regions, and this undermines the delivery of a high-quality service. Staff shortages in prisons mean that keywork meetings do not take place often enough, as staff are detailed to other duties. Staff shortages in the community cause delays in community offender managers (COMs) being able to meet individuals before they are released, to establish a constructive working relationship and provide enough support for release. Although the pre-release handover of case responsibility from the prison to the probation service in the community is a critical aspect of the OMiC model, handover had not been done well enough in 60 per cent of cases. We found shortfalls in public protection work, information sharing and relationship building between prison staff, probation workers and the prisoner. 

We found a disconnect between keywork and offender management by prison offender managers (POMs) and COMs), and not enough communication between keyworkers and POMs. As a result, there is a lack of focus on the prisoner’s progress throughout their sentence. Some keyworkers provided valuable support to individual prisoners, although there was too little connection between sentence planning and work with individual prisoners to help their resettlement back into the community. 

There is too little in place to support an individual’s progression through their custodial journey. Most prisoners were not completing any targeted work in custody to reduce their risk of reoffending, in part because of delays in being moved to the most appropriate prison at the right stage of their journey. For example, some individuals were being released directly from prisons without resettlement services in place. We found that the level and nature of pre-release contact with prisoners were sufficient to reduce reoffending in only just over a third of the cases we inspected. 

Resettlement activity is not coordinated effectively between prison and probation practitioners and pre-release teams. There is confusion around responsibilities and role boundaries, leaving some prisoners anxious about their release. This has been exacerbated by the impact of probation unification on the delivery of resettlement services. Continued recovery from Covid-19 restrictions provides an opportunity to reset expectations and strengthen how prisons and probation services work together to help individuals to transform their lives and to protect the public better. In the light of our findings, we have made several recommendations, including a fundamental review of the role of POMs, which, if followed, we hope will help both prisons and probation services to achieve this aim better. 

Charlie Taylor HM Chief Inspector of Prisons November 2022 

Justin Russell HM Chief Inspector of Probation November 2022

--oo00oo--

Recommendations 

HM Prison and Probation Service should: 

1. review the OMiC model to ensure that: 

a. there is an element of flexibility in how it is deployed in different establishments (for example, reception, resettlement and training prisons), as in the high-security and women’s estate 

b. responsibility and accountability for delivery clearly sits with the head of offender management delivery 

c. handover from POM to COM takes place at the same point before release, removing the distinction between National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company legacy cases 

d. COMs have sufficient time to build effective working relationships with individuals, to inform parole reports and to allow sufficient time for referrals before release 

e. keyworkers are directly involved in sentence planning, and support prisoners and POMs to achieve their targets 

f. resettlement activity is coordinated and fully integrated with OMiC 

2. undertake a fundamental review of the probation POM role, to ensure a clear focus on the prisoner’s progress in custody and preparation for release 

3. ensure that prison and probation service leaders at all levels work together to facilitate the successful transition of prisoners to the community 

4. ensure that prison and probation ICT systems are further aligned, to support full information sharing between keyworkers, POMs and COMs 

5. provide each prison with a directory of interventions, to help staff and prisoners to identify progression routes 

6. carry out a strategic prisoner needs analysis, to set a baseline against which to commission and deliver services 

7. establish a strategic forum for resettlement and a regional performance system to monitor progress. Prison directors/governors should: 

8. ensure that the prison regime provides the protected time needed for prison officers to undertake the keyworker role 

9. ensure that offender management staff in every prison have private spaces for personalised one-to-one meetings between prisoners and their POM and keyworker 

10. co-locate offender management units and psychology and resettlement services where possible 

11. ensure that there is a strong link between keywork, offender management and resettlement work. 

Regional probation directors should: 

12. ensure that there are sufficient staffing levels for senior probation officers in prison, probation POMs and COMs 

13. ensure that COMs understand their role in relation to prison-based pre-release teams, and that this may vary between prisons Offender Management in Custody thematic inspection – pre-release 

14. ensure that probation services work with training and resettlement prisons, to address fully the resettlement needs of those who are due for release 

15. ensure that Professional Qualification in Probation training equips new learners to deliver OMiC 

16. ensure that all required OMiC tasks are completed in a timely way.