Plight of the Long-term Prisoner

Right from the beginning of my career in the Probation Service and working in a Field Team, meant that a significant proportion of the the caseload were serving custodial sentences and a few were serving life. Regular contact through visits and letter was quite normal right from first remand or sentence, as was being part of the sentence planning process. I've always felt it was a vital part of the job and good practice for all prisoners serving 12 months or more to have community contact maintained and actively supported by a field PO.

It doesn't surprise me at all that a recent report from the Prison Reform Trust on the plight of long-term prisoners paints an extremely bleak picture and despite some optimism for OMiC, I can't help but feel this is a situation created largely by the absence of former practice.    

Prison system failing to prepare long term prisoners for release

Prisoners serving long sentences are spending years in jail unsure about what they can do to prepare—and ultimately demonstrate their readiness—for release, a new report by the Prison Reform Trust reveals.

Making Progress?, is the first consultation report of the Prison Reform Trust’s Building Futures programme. It follows collaboration with people from around 30 prisons, who have all served—or will serve—a continuous period of at least ten years in custody.

The consultation found that prisoners were confused and disillusioned by the apparently simple proposition that they are required to reduce ‘risk’. Whilst talk of risk pervades prison life and affects many aspects of prisoners’ experiences, this catch-all term masks important details—risk of what, from what, to whom, in what circumstances?

Demonstrating reduced risk is of particular importance to those whose release ultimately depends upon approval by the Parole Board—and if recent proposals become law—the Secretary of State for Justice.

The report suggests that this confusion stems from a mismatch between what prisons appear to expect from prisoners—broadly, compliance with the rules—and what those in probation and the Parole Board are looking for prisoners to demonstrate to secure their own development and eventual release.

Participants told us that this was leading to them spending years of “nothing time” in prison. Years, often in the middle part of their sentence, where the sentence felt purposeless and stagnant.

“Progress? Which part? Serving a life sentence longer than I have lived—is that normal? It felt as if the prison estate did not even know what to do with us. The reality is lifers at the beginning of our sentences were just warehoused like livestock…sadly many lifers, myself included, saw progression as somewhat of a myth” A life sentenced prisoner, quoted in the report

Another highlighted that their sentence length was acting as a barrier to progression:

“Offending behaviour programmes are prioritised by earliest release date. Which means I have little to no prospect of progressing through my sentence plan or the prison system.”

For others it was their age:

“A minority (but still a substantial number) of long-term prisoners are aware that they are unlikely to live until the end of their sentence. Being rehabilitated to re-enter society is for them (myself included) a false goal.”

The report recommends that HM Prison and Probation Service should develop a long-term prisoner policy framework. It should equip staff working with long-term prisoners to assess risk; communicate this effectively with prisoners and other criminal justice professionals; and give explicit guidance and direction on what kinds of behaviour may demonstrate lowered and elevated risk in future assessments.

It also recommends earlier involvement with the Parole Board in reviewing progress. This would allow any potential roadblocks to release to be identified and a plan to be developed which outlines the steps prisoners can take. With so many years in custody to work with, the system should be aiming for far more prisoners to be ready and safe for release when the period set for punishment expires.

Executive Summary 

This report presents the findings of a prisoner consultation carried out by Prison Reform Trust’s Building Futures programme. Initial scoping work on the programme revealed that sentence progression was a major concern of people serving long sentences. For some time, worries about progression have formed a significant part of the caseload of our Advice and Information service. We carried out the consultation remotely and via a series of roundtable events. Around 100 responses were received to the consultation, which asked prisoners to reflect on four questions relating to their progression. 

Section 2 of the report describes the structure of the different kinds of long sentences being served by consultation respondents. It also unpacks two key terms in the consultation responses that follow. 

The first is ‘risk’. Prisons assess and manage a large variety of risks and the term is used in many ways. For clarity’s sake, we therefore take some time in section 2.2 to unpack the term ‘risk’: what different forms it takes, what we mean by it in the report, and some of the reasons prisoners appear to become confused or disillusioned by the apparently simple proposition that they are required to reduce it. 

The second key term is ‘progression’. Prisoners who responded to the consultation tended to understand ‘progression’ to mean something more broad than ‘risk reduction’ and a gradual reclassification into lower-security conditions as they neared the date of their release. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 question whether ‘risk reduction’ alone can provide a coherent basis for thinking about ‘progression’, given that many sentences are now decades long, meaning that offence-related rehabilitative work may be completed many years before risk can be adequately tested in the community. We suggest that what ideas of ‘progression’ will engage prisoners will depend on factors beyond risk, including the age they are at conviction, and the length of their sentences. This, we suggest, points to the need for an individualised, personalised approach to ‘progression’, sensitive to the individual circumstances of the person whose sentence is being planned. 

Section 3 sets out the findings of the consultation. Section 3.2 shows how many long-term prisoners felt confused and uncertain about how they were meant to progress or to make positive, productive use of their time. Many believed that compliance and the completion of offending behaviour programmes (OBPs) were the only expectations coming to them from the prison, and some pointed out that mere compliance offered very little to motivate or challenge them over the long term. Their evaluations of OBPs were mixed, but there was a consensus that only in rare cases was participation in them enough to secure a progressive move, leading to the perception that the sentence plan left many ‘stagnant’ years in the sentence. Respondents also described problems where information used in risk assessment could appear inaccurate, irrelevant or out-of-date. We suggest that for many, there is a mismatch between what prisons appear to expect from them (broadly, compliance), and what will secure their own development.

This led to challenges that some respondents called ‘nothing time’: the years, often in the middle part of the sentence, where the sentence felt purposeless and stagnant. Section 3.3 presents responses from those who described how they had tried to give these years purpose and meaning, for example by pursuing their own plans and objectives. Educational opportunities were of major interest to many in this group, but all kinds of prison work and other activities were described as worthwhile. Many thought that achievements in these areas went under-recognised by prisons. Respondents also suggested it was difficult to access the right opportunities, and difficult to have their efforts taken seriously and recorded by the prison. Some said taking responsibility for their own personal development required initiative, persistence and determination, and often also strong reading and writing skills to put their case to the prison. These are not possessed by all prisoners. 

Section 3.4 discusses respondents’ views on casework and on how their relationships with staff affected their progression. These views were mixed. There was positive feedback on recent changes in policy, especially relating to the introduction of the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) policy framework. In particular, the introduction of the keyworker role was positively received by those in prisons where keywork was operational. However, respondents also expressed the view that the Prison Offender Managers (POMs) and Community Offender Managers (COMs) relationships were distant and remote, and that these did not always take account of information that the respondent saw as relevant to their personal development. In fact, respondents noted that officers on the wings, whom they saw and interacted with daily, should be more directly involved in recording information relevant to progression, as they are most likely to notice positive changes in behaviour. 

Finally, in section 4, we set out the recommendations arising from this consultation which draw on contributions from prisoners to set out ways of improving the routes to progression for long-sentenced prisoners.

Price of Everything and Value of Nothing

Jim,

Are you aware of an ongoing project to remove the band four staff from the delivery of sex offender programmes? There is currently a consultation ongoing and a job evaluation which is being done with the clear aim of down grading this work due to cost implications.

They want band 3 staff to deliver Domestic Abuse and Sex Offender programmes. Of course, this work used to be all done by band 4 staff (PO), it was only a cost cutting TR exercise that saw programmes work split with DA going to the CRC who immediately down graded the staff needed. However, CRC practice on DA was not generally well regarded as we know. HMIP found very patchy practice when they looked at BBR work in the report linked below.

You'd have thought that taking practices embedded in the totally discredited TR clusterfuckery and extending them to a further risky group of politically sensitive offenders might not be the best idea?

The excellent Probation Journal article by Renehan documents the impact of the Domestic Abuse work on largely female band 3 CRC staff. When I read this personally what I took was that the abuse of these staff by the organisation mirrored the abuse that the course was supposed to address. They were not adequately trained and supported to do this work. Again, doesn't seem the best footing on which to extend these staff into working with another group of POPs who's offending may bring a even greater degree of complexity and emotional labour.

In prisons Sex Offender programmes are delivered by a mix of "unqualified" prison officers alongside forensic psychologists I think, but then prison SO programmes have been found not be very effective so again, perhaps not the best model.

Ultimately, this is a cost cutting exercise and cutting costs while not cutting quality is always fool's gold. 

--oo00oo--

Domestic abuse: the work undertaken by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs)

Foreword

An estimated two million people experienced domestic abuse last year. A good proportion of people in receipt of probation services are domestic abusers, and domestic abuse constitutes a sizeable proportion of the work of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). In this inspection we set out to assess how well CRCs are working to reduce domestic abuse and protect victims. Overall, we found CRCs nowhere near effective enough in this critical area of work, and yet good work here could make so much difference to the families and individuals concerned, and to society as a whole. 

Yes, we found pockets of good practice, as we have come to expect, and we saw examples of good public protection partnership work as well. But overall the work was characterised by a lack of awareness and applied expertise. It is not an exaggeration to say that many individuals were drifting through their supervision period without being challenged or supported to change their predilection for domestic violence, and that simply won’t do. 

Those left unchallenged and unassisted pose a particular threat to others, most especially those close to them. Too often we were left wondering how safe victims and children were, especially when practitioners failed to act on new information indicating that they could be in danger. Practitioners often underestimated the level of harm victims and children were exposed to. Some practice was of grave concern to us. 

In the cases we looked at, we found that very little meaningful work had been completed in custody. In the community, domestic abusers were not making enough progress, and many had completed little work to help them improve their relationships and behaviour. While a range of domestic abuse interventions were being offered, I am not assured that these were all evidence-based, evaluated or delivered effectively. Too few individuals were either starting or completing Building Better Relationships, the only accredited domestic abuse programme that the court can impose as part of a community sentence. 

Many practitioners had unmanageable workloads. Inexperienced staff were managing complex issues with little training or management oversight. Some were too busy to do a thorough job, while others simply didn’t have the knowledge needed to do a good job. Some CRCs had introduced new structures, policies and case management tools but, generally, CRCs should be taking a more strategic and determined approach. In my view, they should be making sure that practitioners know the current evidence base and that they are equipped to supervise domestic abusers well in all respects. That is not happening: there is insufficient focus on domestic abuse. 

There is a lack of clear and specific contractual obligations and incentives for CRCs to actively manage domestic abuse. The Ministry of Justice has the opportunity to consider this, as and when it recasts contracts. 

Our recommendations are focused on what we see to be the big priorities. There is enough in this report to help CRCs identify what needs to be done and where things are working well. I encourage them to build on the pockets of good practice identified here and to give domestic abuse the priority and attention it deserves.

Dame Glenys Stacey 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

September 2018

--oo00oo--

Facilitators of probation-based domestic violence perpetrator programmes: ‘Who’s in the room?’

Abstract

The role that probation practitioners play in the desistance process has begun to receive much needed attention. Yet, the experiences of facilitators of probation-based, domestic violence perpetrator programmes have long been neglected. This article explores the experiences and wellbeing of eight facilitators from one cohort of the Building Better Relationships (BBR) programme in England. Drawing upon five-months’ observations and in-depth interviews, I demonstrate how working with domestically violent men with insufficient knowledge, experience, or support, exacerbated within the context of Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, impacted significantly on facilitator well-being, professional identities, and practice. Practice implications are discussed.

Discussion

The thematic inspection of domestic abuse work within CRCs offered a rare glimpse into the BBR programme. However, it was limited in scope given it did not seek to identify who exactly is ‘in the room’ (Burke, 2014). Understanding the capacities of group facilitators who undertake such work, and the effects on them, is crucial not only for desirable outcomes but for the well-being of those who are tasked with facilitating change in others. Unfortunately, to date, facilitators of DVPPs have been forgotten in between the debate of programme fetishism and desistance focused supervision with probation practitioners (Durnescu, 2012).

I have highlighted that facilitators were not enabled to work in ways that were commensurate with their own personal and professional values for many reasons: there was a lack of adequate training which focused on delivering (some) exercises from a manual and ‘lumped’ together amongst other accredited programme training; the video equipment which was used to record group sessions and monitor practice had not worked for over 2 years and so practice development was not in force; supervision was not supportive; facilitators felt de-valued due to a lack of pecuniary incentives, professional development, and promotional opportunities; and the emotional demands of the job was overlooked even though this affected how they felt and worked. This was further complicated in those cases where facilitators had their own personal encounters with trauma which had both positive and negative effects on them and in how this shaped their practice. What is important to note here is that some facilitators felt they had to leave their own trauma at the door, or face professional judgement or risk losing their jobs.

While many of the facilitators were able to humanise the traumatising but traumatised men with whom they worked, the lack of time, low confidence, and investment in them as valued professionals had impacted on their wellbeing and their professional identities, experiences that were interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Even while the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda of the Coalition Government of 2013 sought to de-professionalise part of probation services, the facilitators in this study, like many other probation practitioners in CRCs (Tidmarsh, 2020a), were still invested in the discourses of professionalism in which they endeavoured to deliver a service that valued the clients with whom they worked. But calls to ensure they were response-abled were met with solutions that diluted the standard of service they had strived to provide. Supervision was not adequate to deal with the emotional demands of the job, vicarious trauma, or the psychological impact of re-living their own traumas. The lack of due care towards facilitators resulted in them feeling devalued, exhausted, desensitised and disincentivised to do their job which was executed with a mixture of enthusiasm and dread. Almost 12 months on, five facilitators were either on long term sick leave or had left.

Nicole Renehan

June 2021

Nothing To See Here!

 Probation Service Change Bulletin - Issue 11 March 2022

1. Amy Rees, Director General Probation, Wales and Youth

Welcome to our re-launched Probation Change Bulletin for 2022. This bi-monthly bulletin will look to spotlight the latest news in Probation, covering all our portfolio change programmes - Reform, Workforce, Reducing Reoffending and Electronic Monitoring, as well as keeping you updated on any key developments across our business as usual areas.

A lot has happened since our unification on 26 June 2021, when we launched the new Probation Service, bringing together staff from the previous National Probation Service (NPS) and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). As a new unified organisation we have been able to integrate the services we deliver alongside core supervision - working in partnership to address the needs of people on probation and support the government’s ambitious agenda to cut crime. All of this while dealing with the backdrop of a global pandemic, ensuring the continued delivery of probation across England and Wales. Probation achieved a lot in 2021 and 2022 is set to be another year of enhanced delivery and continuous improvement, building on our unification.

Our next edition will be published in May, so please keep an eye on this page for further updates.

2. Responding to COVID and Recovery

Great strides were made towards the end of 2021 to move from operating on Probation Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs) to all probation regions in England and Wales delivering to full or light National Standards. EDMs are a suite of documents that were created to adapt how the Probation Service delivered from March 2019, responding to the impact of Covid-19. EDMs looked to set out the level’s to which probation could deliver, dependant on government restrictions and staffing levels. This allowed for flexibility of delivery across England and Wales dependant on local circumstance.

Due to the upsurge in the Omicron variant, Probation Gold Command was reinstated in late December, and the decision was taken to reintroduce the Probation Supervision EDM across England through January. In response to Welsh Government announcement, Probation in Wales also reinstated the Probation Supervision EDM, as well as range of EDMs relating to service delivery for the month of January 2022, this did not include Community Payback and 

Accredited Programme delivery.

As of 31 January 2022, all regions in England and Wales have now successfully exited EDMs again and will be operating on the new ‘Prioritising Probation Framework’, allowing for a steady increase in delivery and providing Regional Probation Directors with a robust tool to help regions adapt to how they deliver probation locally according to numbers of available staff. The aim is to move towards full delivery as soon and as swiftly as is safely possible.

All Approved Premises across England and Wales also exited their EDM on 31 January 2022, unless they were classified as an outbreak site, in which case they will exit their EDM once the UK Health Security Agency / Public Health Wales declares the outbreak closed.

3. Reform and the Target Operating Model (TOM)

The path to Target Operating Model sets out Probations intentions for the future of the service over the 18-months post-unification. The initial focus up to June 2021 was to unify the service, ensuring the transition of around 8000 staff to the Probation Service from the NPS and CRCs.

The focus since June has been to stabilise the service and embed the structural changes across the organisation against the backdrop of Covid-19 and Omicron. The focus now is on delivering more consistent management and delivery of sentence plans, better assessment and management of risk and more balanced caseloads, with an improved case allocation process to support this.

For Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions changes are starting to be implemented that that will drive up completion rates and deliver better outcomes. Much of this will be through making programmes available locally, making improvements to the assessment and induction process and more regular reviews of active cases.

As set out in the TOM, the Probation Service is utilising commissioned rehabilitative services, working with external partners to meet key areas of rehabilitative needs, including: Accommodation; Employment, Training and Education; Personal Wellbeing; and Women’s Services.

Within Courts there is a focus on improving the pre-sentence reports in order to deliver quality advice to courts and improving sentencer confidence in the delivery of community sentences.

Probation is also working to modernise its digital tools to better support probation staff in supporting people on probation. The aim is to reduce duplication in systems, streamline processes and enable better data recording and analysis, to support workload management, decision making and engaging people on probation. Tools have been reviewed that were used to good effect in the NPS and CRCs prior to unification, and are being adopted and improved, as well as identifying gaps and building new ones.

4. Workforce

To support the reforms being undertaken in Probation and to meet the demands of society, in particular the response to the government campaign of recruiting 20,000 new police officers. Probation launched an enhanced recruitment campaign and are pleased to announce that the recruitment target of 1000 PQiPs (Professional Qualification in Probation) for 2020/2021 was met and Probation are looking to increase levels of recruitment even further in this financial year (2021/22) to 1,500 trainee probation officers. As well as PQiPs, there is a real focus on the wider recruitment of staff across Probation, ensuring the organisation recruits and retain the best staff possible. The continued work around recruitment has been a real achievement to help attract the staff needed to meet the growing demand of the wider justice system.

5. Community Payback

The importance of Community Payback was further recognised in the recent Spending Review announcement, with the government providing an additional £93 million of funding over the next three years. This is key to supporting initiatives to provide training opportunities for those on probation, helping them to develop skills to boost their employability.

A new approach to delivering Community Payback will see the Probation Service develop a range of partnerships with national organisation over the coming months to deliver projects across England and Wales. Many of these partnerships will look to focus on outdoor projects that help improve the environment across England and Wales.

Probation recently launched a recruitment drive to attract 500 extra Community Payback staff to join the service, helping to support the ambition to deliver an extra 3 million hours of Community Payback each year. For more information on the recruitment campaign and how to apply for a role in Community Payback, check out Recruitment drive to ensure offenders pay back for their crimes - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Probation will continue to highlight the work undertaken around Community Payback via the HMPPS Twitter account – please check this out regularly to see the latest updates.

6. Reducing Reoffending

Last year’s spending review provided a substantial investment for reducing reoffending over the next three years. £200m a year will be invested by 2024-25 to improve prison leavers’ access to accommodation, employment support and substance misuse treatment, and introduce further measures for early intervention to tackle youth offending.

Work is now well underway on the delivery programme to provide prisoners and prison leavers with the support they need to lead a crime-free life. This includes:

• Delivering a Prisoner Education Service in England which equips prisoners with the numeracy, literacy, skills and qualifications they need to get jobs or apprenticeships after they leave custody;
• Transforming the opportunities for work in prisons and on Release on Temporary Licence, creating a presumption in favour of enabling vetted and appropriate prisoners to take up work opportunities;
• Scaling up specialist roles tested in the Accelerator Prisons project that provide the support that prisoners and prison leavers need to turn their back on crime;
• Introducing new Resettlement Passports that bring together into one place the essentials that prison leavers need to lead crime-free lives on release;
• Ensuring that every prison leaver at risk of homelessness can access the new transitional accommodation scheme.

7. Electronic Monitoring

Electronic Monitoring continues to be a core part of probation service delivery. We currently monitor over 13,000 individuals every day and are looking to increase the caseload to c.25,000 by March 2025. Further investment from the government of £183m for the Electronic Monitoring expansion projects highlights the vital contribution Electronic Monitoring makes to the justice system.

Alcohol Abstinence and Monitoring Requirement (AAMR) is an additional tool available to the judiciary to address alcohol related offending and support rehabilitation. To see more about the new initiative to cut alcohol-fuelled crime, check out Offenders to be banned from drinking to cut alcohol-fuelled crime - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) and No Christmas tipples for 770 alcohol-tagged offenders - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). An Alcohol Monitoring on License (AML) pathfinder was also successfully rolled out in Wales and 3 women’s prisons on 17 November 2021, leading to a complete ban or monitored consumption when a person is released from custody. AML will be rolled-out across England in the summer.

Probation House Style

Probation under civil service control absolutely loves acronyms and there's a very particular management house style I have the greatest difficulty taking seriously and reconciling with the real world. Take for example the latest Insight blog :-

 

Delivering Quality Interventions in Probation: The Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR)

Jason Morris and Laura Baverstock work as Senior Policy Managers within the Service Design Team in the Probation Reform Programme (PRP). In this blog, they explain the work that has been underway to uphold key commitments to increasing the availability of quality RAR interventions in Probation; make best use of evidence and evaluation; and, preserve Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) innovation with a collaborative approach to service design.

On 26th June 2021, 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) were renationalised and unified with the National Probation Service (NPS) to form a new Probation Service for England and Wales. Since then, the Probation Reform Programme (PRP) has continued its work to implement probation’s Target Operating Model (TOM). The TOM provides a blueprint of how the new Probation Service will operate. As part of this effort, we’ve been working to equip Probation Practitioners and Regional Interventions Teams with quality interventions that enable the delivery of Rehabilitation Activity Requirements (RARs).

The Rehabilitation Activity Requirement

RARs form part of a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order to set the amount and type of rehabilitation activity for people on probation. They were introduced in the Offender Rehabilitation Act (2014), as a distinct sentencing option to the ‘programme requirement’ (fulfilled through Accredited Programme completion). Prior to reunification hundreds of identifiable RAR interventions were available across the CRCs alongside many other bespoke interventions. Over recent years, room for improvement has been identified in the delivery of RARs both from the academic community and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation (HMIP).

The TOM sets out how the Probation Service will deliver RARs. A large amount of RAR activity will be commissioned from partner organisations through “Commissioned Rehabilitative Services”. The main vehicle for Probation Service-delivered RARs will be in the form of Structured Interventions and Probation Practitioner Toolkits (also referred to below simply as "toolkits"). Structured Interventions provide a set of exercises delivered primarily to groups by interventions facilitators in a set sequence. Toolkits are comprised of similar material delivered by the Probation Practitioner on a one-to-one basis as part of supervision.

Our task now is to ensure that the TOM is fully implemented to ensure consistency in the availability and quality of Structured Interventions and toolkits. This will improve confidence amongst stakeholders (including the courts) around how the Probation Service delivers RARs.

Approved Suites: Structured Interventions and Probation Practitioner Toolkits

The national Effective Interventions Panel (EIP) played a key role in the lead up to reunification, by enabling RAR interventions to be appraised against seven core principles set out by the Correctional Services Accreditation Advice Panel (principles that are distinct from those required for Accredited Programmes).

The Seven Principles used within the EIP to assess Structured Interventions and toolkits are as follows:

1. Alignment with an evidence base
2. Credible rationale for how, why and for whom the intervention will work
3. A structure that allows replication
4. A selection process that targets the intervention appropriately
5. To equip people with useful skills and ensure that no one will be disadvantaged or harmed
6. Quality assurance to ensure it is delivered as designed.
7. A commitment to research and evaluation

The EIP is made up of experts from across HMPPS. Panel sessions involve a democratic scoring process, which results in recommendations and conclusions that are fed back to developers.

HMPPS Contract Management and the PRP Service Design Team identified interventions from CRC rate cards to continue as Structured Interventions in the unified Probation Service “post contract”. In addition, the EIP sat eight times between October 2020 and January 2021 to appraise 45 Structured interventions. A total of 37 were ear marked for incorporation into an Approved Suite of Structured Interventions that would come into effect by April 2022.

The EIP also sat 10 times to appraise Probation Practitioner Toolkits between April and May 2021. During these toolkit EIP sessions, a total of 24 sets of materials were appraised and seven toolkits were provisionally approved for inclusion in an 'Approved Suite of Probation Practitioner Toolkits'.

EIP decisions were then ratified through a further governance process which approved development work to finalise the approved suites of toolkits and Structured Interventions. The overarching ambition for Probation Practitioner Toolkits was to create greater alignment across the suite to increase their potential to work as wraparound support for other interventions. In addition, several overlapping EIP-approved Structured Interventions were identified for amalgamation into single offers via workgroups comprised of staff from Regional Interventions Teams. A total of 12 Structured Interventions would account for all Structured Intervention delivery from April 2022 onwards.

The Structured Intervention workgroups offer a key opportunity to refine innovation in a stepwise fashion to Structured Interventions:

- fully adhere to EIP principles

- build on CRC innovation

- involve people on probation as co-creators

- integrate sentence management support through alignment with toolkits

Clinical and strategic oversight for Structured Interventions and toolkits will continue to be provided by the national EIP process. This governance will help establish toolkits as the vehicle for RAR delivery within the role of the Probation Practitioner; a step that aims to help put the supervisory relationship back at the heart of probation work. Furthermore, continued EIP governance will help us to work towards greater content alignment between supervision and in-house interventions (such as Structured Interventions and Accredited Programmes). This has the potential to enable interventions to combine more holistically, making the experience of probation more cohesive for people accessing a range of probation services.

Latest On TOM

HMPPS have just published an update to the Draft Target Operating Model for probation services in England and Wales and as you peruse the following highlights, have in mind the following observation from the Prison Reform Trust:-

"The role of central government in probation in recent years has been entirely destructive. Whether that continues to be the case will depend on whether the ministry has the humility and good sense to devolve power to a local level. That rarely comes naturally to central governments of any persuasion. It’s too early to tell how this one will behave.”

3. Further detail on changes 

NPS delivery of Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structures Interventions 

3.1. Under our revised approach to probation reform, Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions will no longer be contracted out to Probation Delivery Partners but will instead be delivered by the NPS directly. We consider that bringing these services into the NPS will put us in the best possible position to respond to any further disruption caused by COVID-19 and enable a smoother recovery out of exceptional delivery arrangements we have had to put in place. These services have been delivered by probation services in the past and as such, we have confidence in our ability to deliver these again. 

3.2. Our approach for all these services for Day 1 will be to move existing CRC staff and delivery models into the NPS with the minimum disruption with ongoing work thereafter to embed and improve service delivery. The transition to a level of service as envisaged by the draft Target Operating Model is likely to take time given the backlogs to Unpaid Work and Accredited Programme created by exceptional delivery arrangements as well as a likely spike in court orders once jury trials resume. This would be the case regardless of which organisation delivery sat with but we consider that bringing this work in-house gives us greater flexibility to deal with this. 

Unpaid Work 

3.3. The design intentions for Unpaid Work are primarily to address the issues with current delivery and to improve quality and sentencer confidence. Effective Unpaid Work placements are crucial in contributing to the Government’s manifesto commitment to toughen community sentences. 

3.4. We plan to achieve this through a focus on the following areas: 

• Quality of assessments; 
• Interface with Sentence Management; 
• Sufficient quality placements with increased focus on education, training and employment (ETE); 
• Local engagement and delivery; 
• Effective administration and recording.

3.5. As detailed in the draft Target Operating Model, the current requirement to commence work within 7 business days does not provide sufficient time to assess and place appropriately and allowing 10 business days for the completion of the Unpaid Work assessment form will enable a full risk and needs assessment. We had envisaged that this would then be shared with the Probation Delivery Partner to match to an appropriate placement and that within 10 days, the Probation Delivery Partner would deliver a full Unpaid Work induction and instruction to attend a first work session. 

3.6. As the revised model removes the interface between the NPS and Unpaid Work, it provides a new benefit for single requirement orders compared to the previous model as these can continue to be managed by Unpaid Work teams. This will facilitate efficient delivery of orders primarily focussed on ensuring Unpaid Work hours are completed and the removal of the interface will speed up the process, enabling the starts timescale to be reduced from 20 to 15 business days. The Unpaid Work assessment form completed by the Probation Practitioner will be incorporated into OASys and so there is no proposed change to the completion of this. 

3.7. It remains a priority to increase the level and scope of work placements available to meet the requirements of the Court. Female service users will be offered a choice not to be placed in all male work environments and appropriate placements will be sought in the local community to meet diverse needs. Sufficient placements and some flexibility alongside other strategies will avoid short notice cancellation of work placements. It will be the responsibility of the Unpaid Work team to review all active cases at the 6 and 9-month stages of the Unpaid Work requirement to ensure all hours are completed within the 12-month period prescribed by the Court and to flag with Probation Practitioners where appropriate action is needed. 

3.8. Whilst the main pathway to address ETE needs remains with the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement as a specific element of the sentence, considerable potential remains within the Unpaid Work requirement for on the job training and skills development that can support future employment opportunities. A feature that defines a ‘good quality’ placement is one that can utilise the 20% allowance for ETE activities for those eligible and as outlined in the draft Target Operating Model we plan a renewed focus on placements providing ETE. Under the revised model we intend to review ETE provision that CRCs have in place currently and how we might continue effective arrangements as well as seeking additional opportunities to secure improved ETE. 

3.9. We will retain our commitment to limit travel time to Unpaid Work placements to a maximum of 90 minutes each way, of which a maximum of 60 minutes each way can be spent under supervision and credited against the sentence of the Court. CRCs are not always achieving this currently so further investment will be required in Placement Coordinators to source placements locally, undertaking local engagement and ensuring sufficient transport solutions. There are currently systems in place so that local people and community organisations can identify work projects for Unpaid Work teams to complete and these will need to be strengthened under the revised model, requiring Unpaid Work teams to actively seek the views of local people and organisations when adopting new Unpaid Work projects.

3.10. We recognise that we will also need to review logistics of Unpaid Work delivery including consideration of CRC estates and assets that we might need to meet locality requirements and how we capture relevant data on placements and scheduling from CRC systems and record this going forward. We will also need to consider how we manage administrative support for which there is not a uniform model under CRC contracts. 

Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions 

3.11. Accredited Programmes are the intervention of choice for HMPPS, as they are supported by a robust evidence base. The NPS currently deliver specific Accredited Programmes (e.g. for sex offenders) which will ease the transfer of other Accredited Programmes to the NPS as there is already expertise in this area and we anticipate that there will be eligible staff for transfer with similar expertise. By bringing these under a single organisation we will also benefit from synergies in delivery of these programmes. 

3.12. Eligibility and suitability checks will continue to be undertaken by the NPS to ensure those meeting the criteria get the opportunity to attend an Accredited Programme. Delivery of the Thinking Skills Programme (TSP) and Building Better Relationships (BBR) Programme in all regions can be achieved by the NPS. In the short term other Accredited Programmes addressing needs such as Resolve and Building Skills for Recovery which are currently being delivered in some locations can continue, subject to review of the delivery suite by the Regional Probation Director to ensure local needs are met. Design intentions to meet equality requirements and timely completions can also be met through our revised approach and will be supported by the recently approved flexible delivery model, which allows for remote and one to one delivery to meet specific needs. 

3.13. We stated in the draft Target Operating Model that the maximum time that an individual would be expected to travel to attend an Accredited Programme or Structured Intervention would be 90 minutes each way. To achieve this under the revised model we will need to secure suitable local accommodation that meets Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel requirements. 

3.14. Further scoping of the CRC and NPS estates is required to understand whether this can be met through existing provisions as well as a review of those arrangements put in place by CRCs that will need to continue (e.g. providing drivers to transport individuals to interventions because of public transport challenges). As with Unpaid Work, we will also need to ensure we have appropriate systems and processes in place to provide a record of the delivery of interventions which can be quality assured. 

Staff transfers and regional structures 

3.15. - 3.16. We expect that CRC staff who deliver Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Rehabilitation Activity Requirements in the three need areas which will become Structured Interventions will be assigned to transfer to the NPS, which will mean many more staff coming into the NPS than under the previous model. There will be some staff in mixed roles which are part Sentence Management and part interventions where decisions on role allocation will need to be made.

3.17. To oversee and deliver this work we will need to have dedicated teams within the regional structure. Further work is required to determine roles and structures within these but we anticipate that there will be a new regional senior leadership role to oversee teams focused on Unpaid Work and Interventions. For Unpaid Work, we will need to consider arrangements for delivery of ETE and peer mentors, which in some instances may be sub-contracted under current CRC contracts. Similarly, for the delivery of the BBR programme, we will need to consider arrangements for the Partner Link Worker role which some CRCs currently sub-contract. Revised approach to Dynamic Framework 

3.18. To support preparation of procurement activity, our development of the Dynamic Framework design had progressed since publication of the draft Target Operating Model. Under the previous model we had planned to let over 200 contracts at PCC level for rehabilitation and resettlement support for Day 1 in the following need areas: 

• Accommodation; 
• Education, Training & Employment and Finance, Benefits & Debt; 
• Dependency and recovery; 
• Personal wellbeing; 
• Women’s services; 
• Services for young adults in Wales. 

3.19. Delivery expertise of much rehabilitation and resettlement support sits in the market as these services have not routinely been delivered by probation in the past. We consider that the Dynamic Framework continues to be the most appropriate mechanism to secure this. This is because it establishes the foundation for future procurement of these services locally and enables delivery of specific and consistent requirements. 

3.20. We recognise though that the impact of COVID-19 on many organisations’ ability to bid along with our own internal capacity to run the competitions, evaluate them and support mobilisation means that we need to revise the scope of what we can procure via the Dynamic Framework for June 2021. 

3.21. - 3.22. To balance the need to reduce the complexity of our initial call-off plans with ensuring sufficient specialist services are still in place for Day 1, we have revisited whether alternatives are available in the short-term to avoid the need for call-off competitions across some categories of need for Day 1. For instance, for some of the original intended Day 1 scope, there are existing alternative sources of provision that Regional Probation Directors are better linked into, and can commission or co-commission directly. 

3.23. Our decision on what to continue to procure for Day 1 has been informed by the following considerations: 

• Where statutory or alternative provision is weakest; 
• Ease of delivery in-house (including opportunity for co-commissioning by regional teams, staff skill-set and physical delivery capability – e.g. whether premises are required); 
• Current usage – both levels and how it is delivered; 
• Extent of need (e.g. is there a specific pre-release resettlement requirement as well as post-release rehabilitative need). 

3.24. For Day 1 we have also considered where it might be appropriate to procure services at a regional level rather than at a PCC level, thereby reducing the number of lots and making delivery for June 2021 more viable. A regional approach does not preclude local delivery. We intend to discuss with Regional Probation Directors the geographical footprint required in their regions for effective service delivery and how we can facilitate this (e.g. co-location with probation offices), as well as considering locality and responsiveness of services in our evaluation of bids. 

3.25. We will open qualification for all categories of need under the Dynamic Framework, even if some are no longer in scope for our initial phase of Day 1 procurement activity. This is important, as our ambition for a wide range of service needs to be able to be met via the Dynamic Framework remains. 

Impacts on staff 

3.26. Supporting staff through this process is critical to its successful transition and delivery. Our approach remains to work closely with Trade Unions, current employers and staff to support the transition and minimise impacts on people’s roles. Whilst we need to do a more detailed review, using updated data returns from CRCs around specific staff impacts of the new model, changes in respect of Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions mean we envisage that staff currently delivering equivalent services under CRCs will be assigned to transfer to the NPS. This provides certainty for a significant group of staff that would otherwise have been reliant on outcomes of the Probation Delivery Partner competition to inform what would happen to them. 

3.27. As outlined in the draft Target Operating Model, we will protect staff terms and conditions following transfer and most new staff compulsorily transferring into the NPS will be eligible to join the local government pension scheme post transfer. The exception is those who retain eligibility to participate in the civil service pension scheme. 

3.28. The practicalities of bringing an increased volume of staff from an increased number of employers into the NPS will necessitate renewed Trade Union negotiations and longer lead in times for enabling activity such as payroll build and testing and vetting. It is also likely to mean that we will need to focus on getting fundamental requirements in place for Day 1 and implement further changes such as restructuring post transfer. As part of the transition we will ensure that those staff moving into the NPS are fully orientated and supported. 

3.29. The establishment of a separate workforce programme, working in close collaboration with probation reform, to develop and build our workforce is in recognition that our people are our most valued asset. We acknowledge the likely increase in training needs created by this change and remain committed to identifying and addressing learning, development and experience gaps for our staff. 

3.30. We recognise the anxiety that staff will be feeling around change to this new system and want to be able to support them through it. This includes providing stimulating work that motivates and engages staff. We want to build a positive work environment that attracts, retains and develops skilled people and champions positive behaviours and practices. We intend to publish our Workforce Strategy shortly, which will set out intentions in more detail and ensure that wider changes happening in probation go hand-in-hand with positive changes for our workforce.

4. Next Steps 

4.1. We will very quickly reprofile the probation reform programme to reflect the revised model. This will include reprioritising resource to those areas that will support a smooth transition and reviewing key milestones to June 2021 and beyond to ensure successful implementation and embedding of the changes. 

4.2. We intend to publish an updated version of the Target Operating Model for the future of probation services early in 2021 to provide further detail on the new system, informed by the changes that we have announced as well as the opportunities presented by new ways of working that we have had to introduce as a result of COVID-19. 

4.3. We will develop a revised illustration of the changes to support engagement with colleagues and stakeholders to promote awareness and participation in the future changes. 

4.4. We will continue to work with senior leaders within NPS and CRCs to explicitly address the culture(s) we currently have and what we are aiming for in the future. This work will be inclusive and recognise the diversity of our workforce and delivery. 

4.5. We will continue to engage closely with stakeholders and partners across the criminal justice system in developing our plans.