End of an Era

Yesterday saw publication of the HMI Annual Report thus marking the burial of TR:-  

Chief Inspector’s overview 

This has been a year of extraordinary and unexpected challenges for the probation service; of major shifts in strategic long-term direction, but also of familiar and recurring issues as well – around resources, staffing and working environments. 

It is the end of an era, as Transforming Rehabilitation makes way for a return to public sector control, and we reflect on how the past five years have shaped, developed and challenged the probation service. 

Many have welcomed the upcoming changes, but we acknowledge that for some – such as senior leaders within Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) – there is disappointment. CRCs have worked with severely hampered budgets to bring innovative and experimental operating models. This annual report recognises this positive work, as well as providing an honest take on how performance has laboured under the weight of resource constraints. 

This year we have widened the scope of what we offer the probation service; not just to identify areas for improvement in individual services, but also to highlight and disseminate effective practice too, for the benefit of all service providers. Our thematic inspections of accommodation for people under probation supervision, and the quality of Serious Further Offences (SFO) reviews are evidence of how bringing together the expertise of our inspectors across England and Wales, with our research, can provide a ‘big picture’ perspective on key areas of probation. 

A vital – although unexpected – thematic inspection this year looked at the impact of Covid-19. As detailed in this report, probation providers are to be applauded for the compassion and professionalism they have shown in changing their working methods quickly and effectively, almost overnight, in response to the pandemic. This is true for all levels of the probation system, although not without its challenges. 

Once again, public protection and the effective management of risk of harm have been at the forefront of our work. They were certainly the focus of our response to the Lord Chancellor’s request that we conduct a detailed review of the case of Joseph McCann, who committed a series of appalling sexual and violent offences while under probation supervision. Our two-part review does not just point out flaws and failures, but also provides learning with the aim of influencing the service for the better. The fact that the management of risk remains one of the weakest areas of performance for both the National Probation Service (NPS) and CRCs is a major concern, and one which we explore in this report. 

Resourcing 

For more than 15 years, probation funding has been on a downward trend; government spending per person under supervision is down 40 per cent in real terms since 2003/2004 (to just £3,550 in 2018/2019) – and flaws in the recent CRC contracts mean that this is likely to be worse for medium/low-risk offenders. By March 2018, CRCs were forecasting losses of nearly £300 million on their contracts, compared with expected profits of £269 million – a gap of over £560 million. The wider effects on the entire system are clear to see; major cuts in probation officer (PO) numbers and stalled investment in information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure and in buildings maintenance. 

We know that probation services are part of an ecosystem which is also suffering from declining investment, and, more recently, from the impact of Covid-19. They rely on many other services to provide support to the people they work with, such as community mental health services, drug abuse treatment services, and mentoring and employment support charities. 

Perhaps the biggest concern for service users has been in regard to the provision of accommodation – more than 11,000 prisoners are released into homelessness each year. The loss of ring-fenced supported housing for people on probation; changes to benefit rules; and other barriers have created a housing crisis for many supervised by the service. This must be a priority for government action going forward. 

There are some welcome early signs that things may be improving – albeit from a low baseline; an additional £150 million has been invested by the government in probation in 2020/2021. We know that an extra £22 million per year for CRCs has made a real difference to Through the Gate services for released prisoners – we rate rated eight out of ten as ‘Outstanding’ on the quality of this work. Also, extra government money, released for emergency accommodation during the initial Covid-19 lockdown period was widely welcomed by the probation staff we interviewed. 

Transforming Rehabilitation 

We are now in the sixth and final year of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, given the decision by the government – in May 2019 – to end these contracts early. 

It has been a bumpy road for this operating model, and the consequences of its flaws – such as the strain caused by flawed payment mechanisms – have been apparent throughout our inspections, as my predecessor recounted in her first annual report in 2017: 

‘…we see clearly that there is a two-tier and fragmented service’ 

‘…many [CRCs] have reduced staff numbers more than once… in some we find staff with exceptional workloads working long hours and still unable to deliver to the professional standards they know are right’. 

‘… overall, not enough is being done, or done to an acceptable standard, in about half of all CRC cases we have inspected’. 

The problems did not stop there. Our early inspections also found serious setbacks in the implementation of new ICT systems. A joint thematic inspection of Through the Gate arrangements with HM Inspectorate of Prisons found: ‘…only a handful of individuals had received any real help with housing, jobs or an addiction’, and that CRCs were making ‘little material difference to the prospects of individuals upon release’. There were examples of good practice in some CRC areas, but when inspected against our new standards and ratings, 19 out of 21 were rated as ‘Requires improvement’ (2018/2019). 

In her final annual report as Chief Inspector, in March 2019, my predecessor said: 

‘…it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to reduce the probation service to a set of contractual requirements’; ‘… significant flaws in the system have become increasingly apparent’; and ‘it will be virtually impossible to deal with these issues if most probation supervision continues to be provided by different organisations, under contract’. 

The government had reached a similar conclusion, announcing the early termination of the existing CRC contracts in 2018. In May 2019, it declared that it would be bringing the offender management function of the CRCs (representing most of the expenditure) back into the public sector by the end of 2020, and committed to this reform happening first in Wales from the end of 2019. Since then, additional investment in CRCs has produced improvements. 

Since September 2019, we have been able to complete nine inspections leading to an overall rating. All of these services were rated as ‘Requires improvement’ in 2018/2019 – three are now rated as ‘Good’. Supervision of unpaid work was also found to be generally satisfactory, with eight now rated as ‘Good’. 

For some services, however, things have not looked so rosy. In five areas, we have continued to find budgets being squeezed, staff under pressure and unacceptably high caseloads, and this has inevitably resulted in poorer-quality supervision. Five CRCs were rated as ‘Inadequate’ for the quality of their day-to-day offender management, against all our standards. 

The onset of Covid-19 brought abrupt change – with some services, such as unpaid work, halted altogether and the suspension of the usual CRC targets and penalties. In the face of mounting uncertainty about the future, the government announced in June 2020 that it was abandoning its plans to continue to outsource the provision of unpaid work and accredited programmes and other interventions to ‘probation delivery partners’, and said that these functions would also come back into the public sector from June 2021. 

I reaffirm my view that this type of structural reform is not a magic bullet for improving performance by itself. It must be backed by real extra resources. The future of the probation service depends on it being funded properly. The quality of probation supervision will not improve merely by shifting large volumes of cases from CRCs back into the NPS next year. Vacancies for POs must be filled, and staff properly trained for their new responsibilities. The positive innovations that CRCs have brought cannot be lost and the transition period must be expertly managed. 

NPS 

Although much of the focus has been on CRC performance in recent years, the public sector NPS has also faced substantial challenges. While, in overall terms, we rated five of the seven NPS regions as ‘Good’ in our first round of inspections against our new standards, every region had at least two quality standards on which they were rated as ‘Requires improvement’. We applied this rating to all seven in relation to our standards for staffing, and to six out of seven for the quality of information services and facilities. 

Although probation services officer (PSO) numbers in the NPS have increased substantially since 2014, PO numbers remain an issue, with over 650 vacancies in September 2019 and particular issues with vacancy rates in London, the South East and East of England. 

The government’s commitment to increase the number of trainee POs is welcome and there are signs that it is starting to pay dividends – with the number of POs rising by almost six per cent in the year to June 2020 and the gap in vacancies closing to 483. Our reinspection of the NPS North West region in January and February 2020 showed that this is starting to make a real difference on the ground. We found that 153 new PO trainees had been recruited, and a full staffing complement after a long period below strength – although it was concerning to see that 32 per cent of officers had workloads in excess of 110 per cent of their expected levels. 

Poor-quality office accommodation and approved premises have also been a real issue in the NPS, with many probation staff operating from buildings that are in disrepair, and approved premises bed spaces being lost through delays to basic repairs. In 2019, only 43 per cent of facilities management jobs were completed within the 10-day target. For example, on our return visit to the North West division, we found 700 outstanding work orders. 

Protecting the public 

It should be concerning and disappointing to all that the weakest performance area we have seen in our inspections is the quality of work to manage risk of harm. 

CRCs have invested substantially in retraining staff on the basics of risk management, but we simply have not seen this translated into better care of the cases we have inspected more recently. 

On every aspect of supervision in relation to risk of serious harm (apart from initial assessment), we have continued to find that, on average, fewer than half the cases we assess in CRCs are satisfactory in relation to planning, delivery or review of actions to manage risk of harm. 

Time and again, we are finding that some of the fundamental tasks of effective risk management have been missed, such as the checks that every responsible officer is supposed to run with their local police domestic abuse team at the point of initial assessment. We have found that, on average, these checks are not being done in over a third of cases. Our joint inspection with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services of Integrated Offender Management – published in February 2020 – found that these promising arrangements had been downgraded to a shadow of their past shared priority. 

I do not need to spell out the potentially disastrous consequences if risk of harm is not managed properly, but the impact on victims and their families can be irreversible. It should not be the case that the only time the public hear about the probation service is when something goes wrong. 

A lack of professional curiosity, incorrect classification of risk, poor information-sharing with the prisons and police, over-optimistic assessments of progress and premature relaxation of controls are things that we find again and again in the cases we look at in our local inspections. Our review of the Joseph McCann case found all these issues combined, to become a catalogue of errors – not least eight missed opportunities to revoke his indeterminate sentence for public protection licence between 2017 and 2019. 

Much of our focus this year has been on the important lessons that can be learned when things go wrong in such cases. As such, I welcome the decision by the Lord Chancellor to give HM Inspectorate of Probation a role in the independent quality assurance of Serious Further Offence reviews from April 2021. We have also published an effective practice guide on undertaking these reviews, based on lessons from a national inspection of practice at the end of 2019. This is all part of our broader, renewed commitment to disseminating advice on what ‘good’ looks like. 

Conclusions 

While it is not true to say that the probation service as a whole is, or was, ‘in crisis’, it has undoubtedly been severely tested by the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms and the profound impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic earlier this year, to which it responded with admirable agility and commitment. 

Of the services we have been able to inspect over the past year, it has been encouraging to see signs of overall improvement in some, and the very real progress that has been made with enhanced Through the Gate services. 

For others, however, things are more difficult. Committed leaders are doing their best to engage staff and improve delivery, but they are often fighting a losing battle as resources diminish. There is a real risk to delivery over the coming six months, as attention is diverted by the demands of transition to the new structures in June next year. 

The new, unified national offender management model is not a cure-all. Adequate resourcing is crucial, and we cannot lose the innovation that Transforming Rehabilitation has unleashed in some areas. CRC leaders have enjoyed the freedoms to try new things; to move into decent office accommodation for the first time or to work out of community hubs; and to develop better case management software. There is no doubt that service users have benefited from the real commitment shown by many CRCs to listen to their views, and even give them a role as mentors, and ultimately as paid staff – an outcome any service can be proud of. 

The road to recovery for probation services will be a long and winding one to traverse, with huge challenges ahead still to negotiate. But with the right resources and leadership, it can be managed successfully, and we will be providing an independent and unbiased view of that progress every step of the way.

Justin Russell

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

There's a lot in this Report such as the following, which I highlight given recent exchanges on here concerning role boundaries:- 

Role boundaries, the ratio of POs to PSOs and the impact on quality 

Newly recruited PSOs The approach to grading and allocation of work for PSOs varies and can be complex. In ARCC, MTC and Sodexo CRCs, we found a recognition of the importance of ensuring that novice PSOs complete core training and gain sufficient experience, before they are allocated complex casework. 

Reduced income across all the Interserve (Purple Futures) services prompted a decision to curb expenditure through a major organisational restructure at the beginning of 2019. This new operating model, however, works on the presumption of an experienced and skilled workforce. In Hampshire and Isle of Wight CRC, the restructure failed to take sufficient account of a predictable shortage of skilled staff or the time required to recruit, train and consolidate the training of new PSO grade case managers and develop the skills of existing case managers to manage complex work, including cases involving domestic abuse. We found that the number of skilled PO grade staff had fallen by 38 per cent since our last inspection. While the number of lower-grade case managers (PSO equivalent) had risen substantially, 45 per cent were new to the service at the time of our inspection. 

The quality of PSO and PO casework 

Given the right training and support, and when allocated the right number and risk level of cases, PSOs can do a good job of supervising low- and some medium-risk offenders. As the Hampshire and Isle of Wight CRC example shows, however, when inexperienced PSOs with large caseloads are substituted for more qualified and experienced POs, and asked to take on complex cases beyond their competence, the result can be a worrying reduction in the quality of supervision. 

Our aggregated results from CRC and NPS inspections show a substantial gap between our ratings of the quality of PO and of PSO case supervision – something that should be a priority for attention as the service transitions to its new unified model in 2021.

Probation Worries For Voluntary Sector

The official government-funded cheerleader for the criminal justice voluntary sector is Clinks and they also gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee last week. Their somewhat scarily-named 'Director of Influence' writes on the Clinks website:-

Probation reform - the view from the voluntary sector   

Today I will be giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee’s inquiry into the future of the probation service. Clinks has already submitted written evidence to the committee which you can read here. This is based on feedback from a wide range of organisations across the voluntary sector and raises many of the issues highlighted in my last blog including the voluntary sector’s concerns on the complexity of the commissioning, the need for costly IT infrastructure and for credit reports not suited to illustrating the financial health of voluntary sector organisations. In my last blog I also highlighted ongoing questions around the contract values and the predicted number of services users these are based upon.

As transition towards the new model progresses and now that we are half way through the competition process for the commissioning of services to be up and running alongside the National Probation Service (NPS) from day one of the new model (Education Training and Employment (ETE), Accommodation, Personal Wellbeing and Women’s Centred Services), I will be reflecting to the Justice Committee Clinks’ views on whether the model offers sufficient opportunity for voluntary sector organisations.

Is there sufficient resource and opportunity for the voluntary sector?

Overall HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is investing a significant amount of money, probably more than ever before, in the kinds of services that our sector has the expertise and experience in providing. By year three and four of the new model onwards it is forecast that £120m will be spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services.

Although the total overall investment that will be made in future years is sizeable, not all services that can be commissioned through the Dynamic Framework in the future are being commissioned to be in operation from day one of the new model. This means that in the early months the amount spent on commissioned services will be considerably less and there are only opportunities for some parts of the voluntary sector.

That said the investment in year one is still greater than Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) data indicates is currently spent annually on resettlement and rehabilitation services. However, the contract values also need to cover more than just service delivery with substantial requirements around having offices in certain locations where services can be based, IT infrastructure and also the need to be able to cover future pension liabilities for staff transferring from CRCs.

Organisations are feeding back to us that for the competitions that have gone live so far, these requirements mean they are having to shave service delivery to the bone, have limited ability to involve the range of partners they would like and are sometimes struggling to make contracts break even.

We have also heard that as a result of this, some larger providers including private primes, are looking to the multi service contracts of personal wellbeing and women’s services as more likely to represent opportunities for economies of scale. This could have a negative impact on the ability of small specialist organisations to compete for these contracts.

Cancellation of Probation Delivery Partner contracts

The cancellation of the Probation Delivery Partner Contracts for the delivery of unpaid work and accredited programmes raised some concerns in the sector that less investment would flow to charities. In reality, the cancellation of these contracts makes little difference to the majority of the small and specialist organisations in the voluntary sector who would have been unable to bid for contracts of that size. Some have questioned how the funds for those contracts will now be spent - but HMPPS is clear that these will now be utilised in service delivery by the NPS and that there was little additional resource for contract management.

One potential implication of this, is that the larger organisations who had seen an opportunity in these contracts are now more likely to be competing with small and specialist organisations for the opportunities presented by the Dynamic Framework.

Is the sector able to engage with the commissioning process?

The issues regarding the complexity of the commissioning process raised in my previous blog remain, and present a significant challenge to the sector. At the end of August over 370 organisations had registered interest in the Dynamic Framework. Over 150 organisations had completed Selection Questionnaires (the supplier qualification form) and at least 60% of those were voluntary organisations. Over 70 of those 150 had already qualified onto the Dynamic Framework. These numbers represent a small proportion of the 1700 organisations estimated to be in the sector, two thirds of which work with people under probation supervision.

As with everything, the complexity of the commissioning has been impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, which has meant that both the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the voluntary sector are engaging in a complex commissioning process with reduced resources and in a reduced period of time.

At the first meeting of the Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3) Probation Special Interest Group, members recommended that for the sector to engage in commissioning at this time all information should be clearly available at the beginning of any call off. However, this has not been the case and voluntary sector organisations are having to individually ask huge numbers of clarification questions. At Clinks we find ourselves not just influencing on overarching policy issues but having to understand and question significant details of the contracts.

Do the proposed services meet need?

Covid-19 has also reduced HMPPS and MoJ resources in such a way that they had to take the decision to commission less services for day one, leaving out Alcohol and Dependency and Finance, Benefit and Debt. For the remaining day one services the competition was restructured to commission Accommodation and ETE across regional probation areas rather than Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) areas. This has further reduced the day one opportunities for the sector overall and as the Accommodation and ETE contracts are larger, there is less scope for the involvement of smaller organisations with more local footprints or delivering specialist services to certain cohorts. These organisations can now only get involved in the delivery of these contracts through partnerships and sub-contracting.

As well as commissioning a more limited set of services for day one, the service specifications in each of the categories are different to that which are currently commissioned by CRCs. There are substantial changes to the Through the Gate model which means that the sector will likely be delivering a more limited amount of pre-release support. This has raised concerns that the learning and benefits of the current Enhanced Through the Gate model which allow for collaboration and closer working between the voluntary sector, CRCs and prisons will be lost.

There is also an assumption inherent in the commissioning model that services will take a while to ramp up and as such the number of service users would be lower in the first couple of years than in later years. Given the needs the voluntary sector knows to exist amongst people under probation supervision, this does not make sense. In part as a result of Clinks and RR3 influencing, these issues have been addressed in the accommodation contract.

We are also engaged in ongoing discussions to understand the contract values for women’s services. As multi service contracts there is added complexity in ensuring it is costed appropriately given that an individual woman may have multiple co-occuring needs that the service will be required to address.

Raising our concerns with HMPPS

We have raised these issues with Amy Rees, Director General of Probation at HMPPS and the probation reform team have engaged positively with us in trying to mitigate these issues. We are currently exploring with them options for providing support to organisations around the IT requirements of the contracts and we hope that we might see the remaining call offs address some of our other concerns.

We hope that this will mean that the forthcoming competition for personal wellbeing and women’s services will avoid some of the challenges around contract value that we have seen with accommodation and ETE, however we are concerned that the questions around estates, and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) liabilities will remain. In addition, the challenges around the complexity and structure of the commissioning model are to a large extent challenges with the cross-government procurement model than with policy choices made by the probation reform team.

Conclusion

We continue to be concerned that despite the increased investment in rehabilitation and resettlement services presented by the new model, the contracts for day one services do not provide significant enough opportunity for the voluntary sector. Where the voluntary sector is successful in the procurements, they may find themselves subsiding contracts in order to deliver quality of service, just as our research found is the case with current Transforming Rehabilitation contracts. We may also have to wait some time before Regional Probation Directors feel the NPS is sufficiently established to turn their attention to commissioning services for day two and beyond. All this threatens the sustainability of the criminal justice voluntary sector and is brought into sharper focus when we consider the impact of Covid-19.

Clinks wholeheartedly believes, that the probation service needs the expertise and experience of the voluntary sector to achieve improved outcomes for the people under its supervision and the communities they live in. For this reason I’ll be raising these issues in my evidence to the Justice Committee this afternoon and we will continue to highlight our concerns with the probation reform team as well as HMPPS, MoJ and the government more widely so that the voluntary sector is able to continue to work alongside probation and across the wider criminal justice system.

Jessica Mullen

Director of Influence and Communications 

Frontline Messages

Yesterday saw a surprising jump in viewing figures for a Sunday and I'm mystified as to the reason. Twitter may have played a part as over time I've been increasingly aware that posting pithy reflective soundbites from blog contributions seems to drive extra interest and hence traffic. All very obvious to marketing strategists I suppose, but still somewhat novel to my prosaic world of public service. 

Maybe it's all to do with the science of 'nudge theory' even though I gather it's neither a science nor theory. Anyway, it seems to work and as I've already remarked, regular reader 'Getafix is very adept at supplying 'Twitter-ready' soundbites such as the following, 'liked' and retweeted many times yesterday:-

"The large numbers of prisoners that are now being released homeless reminds me just how vague and abstract the concept of rehabilitation has become. Building more prisons to help with rehabilitation. Reshaping probation to help with rehabilitation. How? Where? When? The word rehabilitation has become an insert into a verbal phrase designed to sound positive, but has no real meaning or context anymore. It's become a soundbite. I think it's time the State defined what it actually means when it talks of offender rehabilitation, because I for one haven't a clue anymore." 

--oo00oo--

Not a 'soundbite' as such, but I want to highlight the following heartfelt contribution on the subject of housing which certainly reflects my own thoughts and experience over the years. I well remember being outraged when my local Housing Authority proudly announced in the 1990's that police officers were being seconded to their allocations team in order to ensure only 'suitable' people were offered housing. I would remind readers that in those days an independent Probation Service was able to set up its own housing projects in order to address such social policy failures. Of course this is not possible nowadays under direct civil service command and control:-   

"The UK takes a capitalist approach to housing, and that saddens me; in the UK if you cannot "afford" a house, then frankly you can't have one. Landlords, second home owners, people renting rooms have all profited - the system is so skewed in favour of landlords who ask for ridiculous sums of money up front, incentives, rent deposits, month up front, and when they sell the house having done nothing to earn it, they throw the tenants out, who have to start the whole cycle again.

In my world housing would be a basic human right - in the UK we have voted in countless Tory majority governments and this is the price of that.

Housing service users has been the biggest bane of my probation life from the start, i.e. for decades. Legislation only requires local authorities to house those "in priority need" and the rest scrabble around trying to get what they can, with immense pressure put on the probation officer who has no access to houses and no money to pay for them. If an AP manager asks me again "what have you done about X or Y's move on" once again I swear I will throw the phone across town into their face. Local authorities use risk as a get out clause all the time NOT to house people (who are not priority need), whether it be they are "too risky" or "not risky enough". The single young men who have no family are usually in the most dire straits.

The Probation service whether it be the Trusts or NPS have known about this problem for years. It is by far and away the BIGGEST issue as reported by service users themselves in countless "offender surveys" year after year - they don't advertise the results of this, despite putting immense pressure on us to get near 100% completion rate of that damn survey year after year.

And yet despite this the MoJ wasted vast amounts of money on a "through the gate" service which essentially gets armies of staff filling out the OASYS BCS identifying issues with housing, benefits, lack of ID, lack of bank account, with little time/incentive and certainly no money to actually sort the issues out.

If the MoJ gave that cash to the probation officers/service users to pay for deposits/rent in advance, it would free up SO MUCH time, create far less stress, and lead to outcomes - but nope, for the past 7 years it has preferred the Through the Gate staff to spend their time form filling. I'm disgusted and yet know in my heart of heart the service can’t or won't listen because we have a government that does not think that anyone, let alone someone who lost their housing due to their own offending, should have a right to the basic human right of a place to live."

All Your Questions Answered

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

Frequently Asked Questions 

Last Updated: 30th June 2020 

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

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

What will happen to Through The Gate staff and services? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the probation reforms? 

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

Why are we reforming the probation system? 

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

What are the new probation regions?

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

Who are the leaders of the new probation regions? 

The Regional Probation Directors are: 

• Nic Davies (interim) for Wales 

• Andrea Bennett for North West 

• Chris Edwards for Greater Manchester 

• Bronwen Elphick for North East 

• Lynda Marginson for Yorkshire and The Humber 

• Sarah Chand for West Midlands 

• Martin Davies for East Midlands 

• Steve Johnson-Proctor for East of England 

• Kilvinder Vigurs for London 

• Angela Cossins for South West 

• Gabriel Amahwe for South Central 

• Mary Pilgrim for Kent, Surrey and Sussex. 

Will the model be the same in England and Wales? 

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

What will the regional structures look like? 

Each regional senior leadership team will consist of a: 

• Head of Operations 

• Head of Community Integration, Commissioning and Contract Management, 

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

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

How will sentence management change? 

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

How will resettlement change? 

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

How will these reforms enhance public protection?

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

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

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

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

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

How will accredited programmes change? 

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

How will unpaid work change? 

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

What do we mean by structured interventions? 

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

How will treatment requirements change?

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

How will rehabilitative interventions change? 

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

How will IT systems work in this model? 

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

Will there be disruption to IT? 

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

Will staff and user data be protected during the changes? 

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

Will these changes happen within the agreed timeframe? 

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

How will you protect staff and services during the transition? 

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

What are the plans to renew and renovate probation buildings? 

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

When will staff know where they will be moving? 

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

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

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

Will we still be using Oasys? 

The intention is to continue using the Oasys platform. 

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

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

Can CRC owners bid for the services we are outsourcing? 

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

How will quality be measured? 

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

Will these changes level out pay between NPS and CRCs? 

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

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

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

Will staff be made redundant in the NPS? 

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

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

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

Will I need to reapply for my job? 

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

Will I move workplace? 

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

Will there be opportunities for voluntary early departure? 

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

What about my pension? 

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

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

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

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

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

How will these changes impact my workload? 

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

How will you improve staff workload and recruitment? 

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

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

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

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

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

Will more change exacerbate this? 

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

What are you doing to improve NPS retention rates? 

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

Will there be development opportunities for PSOs? 

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

What will the future of probation officer training be? 

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

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

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

What will change in terms of learning and development? 

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

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

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

Whatever Happened to TTG?

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

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

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

Foreword 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin Russell 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

--oo00oo--

This from the Guardian:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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