MoJ Admits PSR Problem

Here's news from an MoJ announcement yesterday that's certain to cause many a seasoned probation officer to either reach for alcohol or shed a mournful tear. Having so successfully spent the last decade destroying the integrity and utility of Pre Sentence Reports, the MoJ finally realises there's a problem. If only they'd been reading this blog - actually they did/do, but the civil service command and control mindset takes so very long to admit a mistake of any kind. It's yet more evidence of why probation will be forever doomed unless it can break free and regain it's distinctive identity and local accountability. This from MoJ website:-  

Pre-sentence report pilot in 15 magistrates’ courts

Pre-sentence reports

A pre-sentence report (PSR) is an expert assessment of the nature and causes of an offender’s behaviour, the risk they pose and to whom, as well as an independent recommendation of the sentencing option(s) available to the court.

A PSR assists the court when they may be considering a community or custodial sentence for the offender. A PSR must be as objective as possible and for this reason typically consists of:

• a summary of the facts of the case
• an expert risk and needs assessment about the individual circumstances of the offender and the offence(s) committed
• an analysis of the sentencing options, with an independent sentence proposal
• additional information not presented to the court such as information about the offender and their view of the offence(s) which is obtained by interviewing the offender or through the liaison with other agencies

PSR’s provide the court with a greater understanding of the background and the context of the offending behaviour, rather than just the details of the offence. However, the Judiciary will form an independent view for the most appropriate sentence based on all the evidence they have heard.

The pilot

As highlighted in the Sentencing White Paper, published in September 2020, there was a significant decrease in the number of PSR’s being requested by the Judiciary between 2010-2018. The PSR pilot was launched in response to this government recognising the vital role that PSR’s play in the criminal justice system.

The Ministry of Justice, HMCTS and the Probation Service has developed an Alternative Delivery Model designed to improve the quality of information presented to court at each of the pilot sites. The pilot will evaluate whether this alternative approach will improve offender outcomes, Judicial confidence and the administration of justice.

The pilot launched on 22 March 2021 and was rolled out across 15 magistrates’ courts in 4 phases over 8 weeks. It is now live in all 15 magistrates’ courts.

In the Sentencing White Paper, the Lord Chancellor committed to ensuring that probation staff are supported to produce a high standard of reports and to increase the amount of court disposals which benefit from a PSR.

This aligns with the ambition set out in the Probation Target Operating Model: to provide expert pre-sentence insights to the Judiciary, contribute to efficient court processes and arrangements for enabling successful sentence commencement.

Alternative Delivery Model

The Alternative Delivery Model comprises three components;

• Encouraging and monitoring a before plea PSR process (set out in the nationally available PSR before plea protocol) - seeking to identify defendants earlier in the criminal justice system
• Maximising the capability of the National Probation Service to deliver higher quality reports on the day through targeted training and development
• Delivery of short format written reports for three priority cohorts that are understood to have more complex needs. These are:
• Female offenders
• Young adult offenders (between 18-24 years of age)
• Offenders who are deemed to be at risk of custody

The priority cohorts were identified as commonly having complex needs, and therefore require a more comprehensive, written PSR rather than an oral report. It is important to note that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic populations generally show an over-representation in the offender population and the evaluation will be analysing this data to identify if it is possible to discern any impacts for people from ethnic minority communities. The pilot has also created a new learning and development package for probation court teams in pilot sites. This package is split between online learning and virtual workshops which include a focus on building communications and advocacy skills, tackling racial disparities in the criminal justice system and learning how to become trauma informed and responsive to better support offenders.

Next steps

Early insights from the pilot will be collected after 6 months, and a fuller evaluation will be undertaken after 12 months. A further evaluation exercise will also look at longer-term outcomes of offenders throughout the year after sentence.

Published 19 May 2021

Top Priority for Nomenclature

Along with arranging deck chairs aboard sinking ships, choosing new names for things is often taken as a sure sign that matters are going seriously awry. It was an article in the Times that set things off again:-

Jail bosses told to stop calling prisoners residents or clients

Prison officials have been told that they must stop calling inmates residents, clients or supervised individuals because it creates the wrong impression of criminals.

Alex Chalk, the prisons minister, told civil servants, prison staff, governors and probation officers that they should stick to using the word prisoner, The Times has learnt. He said the increasing use of alternative language to refer to and address prisoners was sending mixed messages about how the state and wider society perceived serious criminals. The use of residents is commonplace in guidance in some prisons across England and Wales.

Probation service manuals have rebranded prisoners as supervised individuals and service users. Some prison officials even refer to inmates as clients. The move away from referring to inmates as prisoners is part of efforts to avoid labelling people as offenders in the belief that it will help their rehabilitation. 

The alternative language is also used by officials, including Jo Farrar, the chief executive of the prison and probation service. In a speech this year to announce funding for in-cell activities, she said: “All prison governors will be given funding to spend on in-cell activities and extra technology to help our incredible staff support residents to maintain family ties and access support services.” Guidance at HMP Wandsworth in southwest London says: “Residents have phones in their rooms and are able to make outgoing calls.”

Prison officers have warned that referring to prisoners as residents can often be counter-intuitive for the offenders themselves. One former officer said: “I have locked some people up in the worst accommodation you can imagine and actually if you called them a resident in that accommodation you’d be taking the mick. Why are we trying to pretend they’re not in prison?”

Ministers fear that moving away from traditional terminology to refer to prisoners risks undermining the public’s trust in the penal system and sends out mixed messages. A source close to the prisons minister said: “This kind of language does nobody any favours. People in prison are there because they have committed serious crimes and need to be locked up to protect the public. We should be speaking plainly and not pretending that these people are angels residing in a cell out of choice.”

Andrea Albutt, president of the Prison Governors Association, supported the move. She said:

“We’ve used the term prisoner for many, many years. The word prisoner is inoffensive, it refers to everyone who’s in prison — whether they are on remand and unconvicted or convicted. It doesn’t really matter what crime they may have committed — they are a prisoner. We’ve had residents, we’ve had clients, we’ve had service users — all sorts. It muddies the water. Prisoner is simple, it’s inoffensive and it refers to every single person who is in prison.”

--oo00oo--

Rob Allen has picked-up on the issue:-

Rehabilitative Culture War

Last month inspectors reported on a prison where “a variety of well-embedded arrangements aimed at keeping residents and staff safe were in place”. Good news, except perhaps for Prisons Minister Alex Chalk who so dislikes the term “residents” he is seeking to prevent prison staff using it to describe or refer to people in prison.

Chalk has more important things to worry about than opening up an unnecessary front in the culture wars. But he reportedly believes the increasing use of alternative language is sending mixed messages about how the state and wider society perceives serious criminals. Apparently “we should be speaking plainly and not pretending that these people are angels residing in a cell out of choice”.

While far from being the most important problem in prisons, language can be important. I recall seeing a notice from a Governor a couple of years back reminding staff not to talk about “feeding” at mealtimes or “bending up” when applying restraint. Would Chalk prefer a return to this sort of plain speaking?

There has been an overdue recognition of the importance of treating people in prison with respect and dignity, giving them a voice and showing and encouraging trust. Why? Not least because more positive perceptions of so-called procedural justice by prisoners predict lower levels of misconduct, better emotional well-being and mental health outcomes and lower rates of future reoffending.

Of course, the dreadful conditions and experiences faced by many prisoners can make the term resident look peculiarly ironic and ill fitting. But requiring the application of a generic label of prisoner could allow Mr Chalk and his colleagues to ignore those awful realities, or worse justify them under the dismal doctrine of less eligibility. He would do well to remember that people are sentenced to prison as a punishment, not for a punishment.

In an important statement launched this week, the United Nations is rightly promoting "a rehabilitative approach to prison management that fosters the willingness and ability of prisoners to lead law-abiding and self-supporting lives upon release, and that is embedded in a decent, safe and healthy prison environment and the positive engagement of officers with prisoners".

As part of such an approach, surely governors and staff should be able to continue to use terminology which communicates most productively with prisoners and their families, something which has been particularly important during the pandemic. If the language contributes towards a more rehabilitative ethos so much the better. Referring to people in prison as residents won’t solve all of the problems in the system but neither will it do any harm.

Rob Allen

--oo00oo--

And of course readers on here and Twitter have joined in:-

We now have PoPs. People on Probation. I read it in a recent PI. No more SUs, offenders etc.

*****

Really? They know us offenders don't give a stuff about all that lol and would rather you just .... you know....help us out a bit.

*****
When HMPPS organises the deletion of the "offender" label from its databases, the ones that everyone working in the system sees every day, I will give some credence to this virtue signalling. Hang on, no, cant wish for that, because that would necessitate the establishment of a Change The Culture Manager, with a #workstream #budget. And recruitment of staff away from the actual work, Just shove some blummin' money at the coal face, we are desperate.

*****

There’s no more offender managers, it’s now either probation practitioner or sentence manager.

*****
I’ve never called myself an OM & I’ve always had cases, so I will just ignore this as I’ve done so for the last however many years each time there’s been a change!  Been in the service nearly 21 years (as a qualified PO for 15 years), so it’s still not going to work for me!

*****
There needs to be a complete culture shift away from administrative managerialism back towards one based on human relations. We basically need a revolution.

Maturity Required ASAP

As June 26th and 'reunification' rapidly approaches, it seems that according to HMI Justin Russell everything is on track, apart that is for staffing issues and concerns over services. Quite amusing if it wasn't so bloody serious of course. 

As a bit of a curtain raiser, we have the Times highlighting the significantly skewed age profile of probation officers, the Service having steadfastly done its best to purge the ranks of any remaining mature free thinkers post TR, substituting a robust 'JFDI' policy along the way:-

Call for boost in numbers of older probation staff

Britain needs to hire older probation officers to keep pace with a rise in geriatric prisoners convicted of historical sex offences, the chief inspector of probation has said.
Justin Russell said many elderly offenders struggled to respond to probation officers who were significantly younger. He urged the Ministry of Justice to target older people as part of its recruitment drive and to encourage them to transfer from other careers.

He was speaking before the re-nationalisation of probation services next month, following the disastrous semi-privatisation of providers by Chris Grayling, the former justice secretary, seven years ago.

A report by inspectors found major gaps in probation workforces, with parts of the south of England recording a vacancy rate as high as 35 per cent.

An increasing number of elderly prisoners convicted of historical sex abuse are coming to the end of their sentences following the surge in prosecutions over the past decade. There are almost 5,000 prisoners in England and Wales over the age of 60, making up one in 16 inmates and a 243 per cent increase in the past 20 years. The number of prisoners serving time for sexual offences has almost tripled since 2002, with older inmates disproportionately represented among this cohort. There are more than 13,000 prisoners serving time for sexual offences.

Russell said: “I think the probation service needs some older staff with a broader age range, with other life experiences in terms of engaging with older offenders.”

Actually, it's a bit more serious, as one seasoned commentator to this blog put it:-

You wouldn't have to be a "geriatric" prisoner, (and you would statistically be male}, just not a teenager, to be thoroughly disengaged and insulted by a fresh faced prim and eager young graduate PO telling you that she had assessed that your thinking needed adjusting, your attitude was a bit off, and she had a little ladybird book of "exercises" for you to complete, in order for her to evidence her efficacy.

Anyway, this from the report and specifically that relating to staffing issues:-

Foreword 

The probation service has gone through many changes over the last 20 years, most recently through the Transforming Rehabilitation agenda, which saw delivery split between private and public sector provision. HM Inspectorate of Probation has commented previously on our concerns about the impact of Transforming Rehabilitation. The planned unification of provision this June will draw probation services back together into one new delivery model in the public sector – we welcome this decision. A significant change programme to deliver this unification and a new longer-term operating model has been launched. If the benefits of the model are fully realised and backed by adequate resources, this will address many of our previous recommendations to improve probation delivery. Unlike Transforming Rehabilitation, the large majority of staff and managers we spoke to support this direction of travel. 

This unification programme is no small endeavour and will see staff from 54 separate organisations coming together on day one of the model, 26 June 2021. An ambitious task in itself, but with the added complication of delivering this change within the context of a global pandemic which adds considerable extra complexity and has affected the ability of the service to plan the transition. Day one of the new unified service represents the beginning, not the end, of the transformation process. The amalgamation of inherited structures and the implementation of a new operating model will take time – potentially at least four years – and there will be inherent risks. The pace with which this change programme is being delivered is fast and is happening against the backdrop of ongoing Covid-19 restrictions. 

Our findings are based on fieldwork undertaken between October 2020 and February 2021. The inspection team interviewed over 200 people involved in the reform programme including every regional probation director and national workstream lead as well as frontline staff in five probation regions. We found a rapidly evolving picture and a notable increase in the momentum of planning and preparation as our fieldwork progressed. As key milestones were reached and plans started to crystallise, our confidence (and that of key stakeholders) increased in the service’s ability to transition successfully to a new unified structure on 26 June. 

Our judgement is that the necessary steps are being taken to ensure continuity of sentence management from day one of the service. A ‘lift and shift’ approach means that probation officers (POs) and probation services officers (PSOs) are taking their existing caseloads and line managers into the unified service for the first few months to reduce risks of service users being ‘lost’ in the transition. Good progress has been made to transfer Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) office accommodation to HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS); the roll-out of new laptops, mobile phones and Ministry of Justice IT accounts has also started for CRC staff. 

I do, however, have concerns in a number of areas. The Inspectorate has reported previously on staffing issues; these remain and are particularly acute in some regions. While plans are in place to recruit and train additional probation officers, they will take time to come on stream and reach full capacity. There is a challenge for the service to bring all staff together and develop a new cohesive culture for the unified model, where ex-CRC staff have the same status and respect as their ex-NPS colleagues. The Dynamic Framework which is being used to procure additional rehabilitative support for service users is running behind schedule for some services, leaving little time for new providers to mobilise a new service by the end of June. In some regions, there may be gaps on day one. Resettlement work will also require close attention. I have been pleased to see the difference that additional funding for Through the Gate services has made over the past three years to work with prisoners being released from custody. In our most recent round of inspections we rated eight out of 10 CRCs as ‘Outstanding’ on this aspect of service provision. There is a real concern that this progress is put at risk as these contracts are terminated, teams are broken up and new providers put in place. Strong regional leadership will be needed to ensure this does not happen. 

I am grateful to everyone that has engaged in this inspection and been responsive to the independent feedback that we have provided the probation reform programme to inform the transition activity. Probation staff across the board should be commended for their resilience and hard work during these challenging times. Day one is very much the start of the journey for the new unified probation service, and I look forward to seeing progress in our future regular inspection programme. 

Justin Russell 

HM Chief Inspector of Probation

----//----

Staffing 

The process for transferring staff from CRCs to the new probation service is gathering pace. We are satisfied that all eligible staff will be transferred by day one. The process of allocating heads to the 108 local Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) is due to be complete by April 2021; these will be key leadership roles for frontline delivery. Some staff roles do not map across easily to the structure of the new organisation – this will have to be resolved following unification. 

CRC caseloads will transfer to the unified service, with probation practitioners retaining current caseloads for the period immediately after transition. In time – once ex-CRC staff have been fully trained in the management of higher risk cases and current NPS staff have been trained in the full range of low to medium risk cases – all practitioners will manage a blended caseload of higher and lower-risk cases. Some regions are planning to implement the new workload management tool early to inform the allocation of cases. In order to ensure cases are being managed by appropriately trained staff, we recommend changes to case allocation are made in accordance with the plans set out in the TOM. 

Many staff within CRCs managed by MTC and Seetec, who have their own case management systems, will not be fully trained and skilled in the use of the NPS OASys6 and nDelius7 systems prior to day one. While contingencies have been identified and staff will be able to view a pdf of the previous assessment on nDelius, until all staff are trained, this will place a burden on those who have the experience of using these systems to support those who do not. 

Additional newly-qualified probation officers and trainee PQiPs are a welcome boost to staffing numbers. However, it is recognised that this group of new staff will have continuing learning needs, protected caseloads and limited capacity in the short-term. The impact of this will fall on senior probation officers (SPOs) and more experienced probation officers who are already feeling the other additional pressures of going through a significant change programme. 

While the staff and caseload transfer processes appear to be on track for day one, there is still much to do to ensure all staff have access to the relevant training, learning and development opportunities and manageable workloads in the longer term.

Staff 

Nationally, there is a huge amount of work needed to support the transition of some 8,500 (7,500 full time equivalent) CRC staff to the new structure, while also supporting the HR and workforce needs of those in the NPS. There are many interdependencies across the transition programme, with the picture ever changing. Delays in the commissioning of some services in some regions through the Dynamic Framework will affect staff working for current providers, who remain uncertain about whom they will be working for after June. Contractors have been brought in to support the HMPPS central team with some elements of this workstream. We question if there is sufficient time left to complete the volume of essential staff transfer processes, needed in the months to June 2021, with the existing resource. 

Delays in the process of assigning roles in the unified service have led to a high degree of uncertainty for many staff. The future roles and responsibilities for those with a sentence management role carries more certainty than for other staff, particularly those in corporate and resettlement functions. The majority of staff responsible for delivering accredited programmes and rehabilitation activity requirements (RARs) will transfer into specialist interventions teams in the new structure. However, other staff will transfer to Dynamic Framework providers, for example those providing some outsourced Through the Gate support services. While all staff have been guaranteed a role in the new unified model with a three-year period of pay protection, anxiety prevails because of this uncertainty. The lack of timely sharing of some staff data by the CRC parent organisations and lengthy quality assurance processes for this data by HMPPS has contributed to much of the delay, with external contractors to HMPPS struggling to understand the context in which their data assurance exercises are taking place.

The allocation of assistant chief officers, for example to each local Probation Delivery Unit, was originally scheduled to be completed in Autumn 2020 and the delay of this until March/April 2021 has been unhelpful. In a period when these senior managers should be driving transition forward, and supporting their teams, their own roles in the future model have remained uncertain. Some of the challenges around staffing are, in fact, not transition related, and we have commented on staffing challenges for both NPS and CRCs for a number of years. Some regions have a significant vacancy rate for qualified probation officers, as high as 35 per cent. This issue is most acute in southern regions and is likely to continue to remain a challenge. The workforce professionalisation agenda is ambitious but for it to be successful, sufficient qualified probation officers need to be in place. The recruitment of 1,000 probation trainees (PQiPs) has continued throughout the pandemic, but it will take time for them to become sufficiently skilled. There is also a balance to be struck between the number of PQiPs undergoing training and the necessary infrastructure, including managers and assessors, to support them. As the old probation divisions separated into new probation regions in summer of 2020, existing senior leadership teams were split between them, leaving some new regions with gaps to be filled. Good progress has been made in filling Heads of Operation posts. However, other important regional positions remain vacant. In particular, the Heads of Community Integration posts which will lead regional commissioning of services had yet to be filled at the end of February 2021 – only four months before transition. We think the new regional leadership teams lack a dedicated post to lead on resettlement work to oversee the quality of release planning and resettlement work across each region and support local PDU heads of service with this crucial function.

Probation Pay Claim 2021

This published on Thursday:-

UNIONS SUBMIT 3 YEAR PAY CLAIM FOR NPS MEMBERS 

Napo, UNISON and GMB/SCOOP have submitted the following 3 year pay claim for members in NPS. 

• A three-year award to cover the 2021, 2022 and 2023 pay years

• An increase in the value of all pay points above the Retail Prices Index (RPI) of inflation on 1 April 2021, 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023

• An increase in the value of all NPS allowances above the Retail Prices Index (RPI) of inflation on 1 April 2021, 1 April 2022 and 1 April 2023

• Shorter Pay Bands to allow staff to reach the top of Pay Band in a shorter time

• Removal of Pay Band Overlaps

EXPLAINING THE CLAIM 

1. A three year pay award would: 

a. Give members certainty about their salaries in the medium term 

b. Ensure that increments were actually paid on time on 1 April in years 2 and 3 of the award. The NPS has confirmed that pay progression will happen automatically with effect from 1 April this year, with the same expected on 1 April 2022, because the Competency Based Pay Framework does not impact on the award of increments until 1 April 2023. As members would expect, we are pressing NPS for payment of the pay progression due from April 2021, but as usual we await clearance by the Treasury.

c. Free up time for the unions to deal with the many issues which are going to come out of the probation unification programme. 

2. NPS staff need a real increase in the value of their pay points, in addition to pay progression. There has not been an actual increase in the value of probation pay points since 2013, as the following table comparing probation pay increases with increases for other public sector workers shows.

            Probation            Police Staff           Local Government          Health

2010       0%                         2.58%                          0%                              0%

2011       0%                              0%                          0%                              0%                    

2012       0%                              0%                          0%                              0%

2013       1%                              1%                          1%                              1%

2014       0%                           1.1%                       1.1%                              0%

2015       0%                              1%                          1%                              0%                  

2016       0%                              1%                          1%                              1%

2017       0%                              1%                          1%                              1%

2018       0%                              2%                          2%                              3%

2019       0%                            2.5%                         2%                           1.7%
2020       0%                            2.5%                     2.75%                         1.67%

Total        1%                          15.6%                    12.6%                         10.8%     

So, over the last eight years the value of NPS pay points has gone up only 1%. When compared with police, local government and health workers, it is clear that probation staff have been particularly badly treated. 

3. Since the NPS was created in 2014, there has been no increase in the value of any of the following NPS allowances. 

• Prison Supplement: £675 

• Standby Allowance: £42.16 

• London Weighting: £3889 

• Market Forces Supplements: £3,016/£1771/£1,101 

To demonstrate just how far these allowances have declined relative to RPI inflation, here is what they would be worth now if they had been increased by the 35.6% inflation rate between 2010 and 2020: 

• Prison Supplement: £915 

• Standby Allowance: £57.17 

• London Weighting: £5273 

• Market Forces Supplements: £4090/£2402/£1493

4. The unions have been successful in previous pay claims in reducing the length of NPS pay bands to allow members to progress to the top of their pay bands quicker. We aim to build on this success by seeking to further shorten the pay bands. 

5. Many of the NPS pay bands overlap each other so that someone at the top of one pay band earns more than someone at the bottom of the pay band above. The unions want all these overlaps removed, as they are bad for morale and potentially discriminatory.

--oo00oo--

I wonder why prison service pay isn't included in the table of comparators? Ed

Questions

In trying to bring things back to probation rather than politics, I sense that in all sorts of ways we've reached a crossroads on here and its rather neatly summed up by this yesterday from regular contributor 123Me:-

Post Bank Holiday thoughts... I am retiring soon and have been wondering about post retirement for myself? Do I forget Probation and the difficult recent years as both a CRC and NPS worker? Probably not but there doesn't seem much out there for ex Probation Service and Probation Officers in retirement. Interested in what people think, is a WhatsApp group a possibility or some other way of connecting with like minded people? I am also interested in discussing why we need to be anonymous on this Blog - for many people this is solely necessary to prevent either CRC or NPS Managers coming after us. I shall also ditch my 123me confidentiality shortly before I retire as I can't see what else could be done by Management to further wreck my career in Probation...

*****

Good luck 123 your getting free. I was aware of a Napo group wanting retired members rights. I think it was started by one of the older reps clinging onto nothing. I don't think it took off. Whatever flag you fly I hope you continue to contribute to JB enjoy some of your views.

*****

It's all about privatisation & money - again!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/04/usman-khan-mentor-visits-stopped-weeks-before-terror-attack-inquest-told

The convicted terrorist Usman Khan stopped getting regular mentor visits aimed at preventing him reoffending because of a Home Office contract dispute weeks before his deadly attack at Fishmongers’ Hall, an inquest has heard.

In November 2019, within a year of being released from prison on licence, Khan killed Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones at prison education event at the hall. An inquest into their deaths was told that initially after his release Khan was “making progress” thanks in part to twice weekly visits from mentors under the government’s desistance and disengagement programme.

But these visits suddenly stopped in August due to a contractual dispute, the inquest was told. It also heard that this occurred at a “critical” stage when Khan was moving out of an approved probation hostel and struggling to find work. And weeks later police became alarmed about Khan becoming isolated, the inquest was told.

Phil Bromley, Khan’s counter-terrorism probation officer, confirmed to the inquest that Khan was progressing well with the help of the mentors in May 2019. Jonathan Hough, QC, counsel for the inquest, read out an assessment Bromley made of Khan at the time. He said: “On 15 May 2019 you record that: ‘Usman Khan continues to make good progress. Working with a practical mentor twice a week, although this may reduce to once a week. Also engages with religious mentor once a month’.”

Hough told the inquest at the Guildhall, London, how these mentor arrangements came to a sudden halt. He said: “He [Khan] had had these mentors coming to see him once or twice a week, and then it stopped, because I think of a contract issue between the companies that provide the mentors and the Home Office.”

Bromley confirmed the lack of mentors hampered Khan’s efforts to find work because under his licence arrangement he was not allowed to access the internet without supervision by a mentor. He said he and Khan’s main probation officer, Ken Skelton, tried but failed to find replacement mentors. He said: “I don’t think we came up with a solution because of the time and what happened. We were looking at potentially either Mr Skelton or potentially I think it was Ixion who are an agency that we were working with with Mr Khan … but we never got there.”

Henry Pitchers QC, counsel to the family of Jones, read an email from Bromley in September 2019 expressing concern about the lack of mentors following the contractual dispute. Bromley’s email said: “We are at a point of transition for Usman given he’ll be moving on from approved premises soon, which is always a critical stage. So the timing isn’t great. So I would certainly support him being assigned another mentor if possible.”

Pitchers said: “We know that no mentoring took place in September, October, November, and that that lack of mentoring, would mean an absence of potentially protective factor.”

Bromley replied: “Yes.” Weeks later police expressed concern about Khan becoming isolated and raised this at a multi-agency public protection arrangement (Mappa) meeting about Khan. Hough said: “Staffordshire special branch had concerns about him being socially isolated. And that was raised both in the Mappa meeting in November 2019, and in some email communications.”

Previewing evidence to come, Hough said: “We are likely to hear that seasoned professionals in this field had concerns or expressed concerns about Mr Khan being socially isolated, so not simply a business as usual matter but specific concerns.”

The inquest continues.

*****
I find this piece so sad on so many different levels. My heart goes out to the probation officers involved, the victims and indeed Mr Khan's family and friends.

My sadness is about the principle of "outsourcing" and how process driven probation has become - this is NOT a criticism of any staff members involved, rather how disposable and mechanistic services have become - so replacing one paid mentor with another, as if Mr Khan himself had no say in who he would spend his time with as someone was accompanying him to use the internet. 

I don't disagree at all that a strong mentor/mentee relationship can have powerful impact for some people...what I do disagree with is the disempowering of the probation/probationer relationship, which is no longer valued as itself a vehicle for such a relationship.

I look at these new "contracted out" services under the new "Target operating model" - ETE, housing, personal wellbeing, family support, drugs/alcohol, mental health services, GP, jobcentre, accredited programmes....is this new model expecting service users to attend with 9 different agencies/professionals? And if so, precisely what exactly is the role of the probation officer - to "manage the risk" I'm told - quite how anyone would want to engage with me when I myself, directly, have nothing practical to offer and therefore how can I be expected to "manage risk" when the service provision is so fragmented among so many different agencies I don't know? 

Can anyone else help me here? As I say, no, I don't consider that probation should "only" be delivered solely through one individual - but should I be worried about the case management approach which the Target Operating Model seems to aspire to?

I used to love delivering supervision sessions; an example might be practicing an interview let's just say, which has underlying links with addressing risk factors relating to gaining improved confidence, life skills, interacting appropriately with others, expressing yourself - or shall I just say "thinking skills" in OASYS speak. Nowadays, would I be criticised because my job is about "motivating him to attend ETE", or "referring him to TSP"? I'm aghast at what probation has become.

*****

Being 'in denial' doesn't mean one necessarily denies the existence of; it more commonly means one ignores, minimises or is avoidant of the issue in hand. 

It used to be a well-understood and common frustration faced by Probation Service staff. It was a very popular trait amongst sex offenders and domestic abuse perpetrators, i.e. something happened but it was never their fault, they weren't to blame, it was always someone else who caused it to happen, they were often heroically trying to stop it happening, etc etc etc, blah blah blah, lie lie lie.

*****

Did anyone see the last episode of Line of Duty? The point made is that corruption often parades as incompetence. He's right. It's there all the time. Probation, Senior Management, Parliament, the PM. It's a comfortable place to hide.

A Shot Over The Bows

Regular readers, especially those associated with the MTC Novo-run CRCs, will be fully aware of Helga Swidenbank. Over the years we've covered the goings-on many times, so the following shot over the bows from an irritated Sir Bob Neill, Chair of the Justice Select Committee to Robert Buckland, Secretary of State for Justice, will be of interest:-

By Email 21 April 2021

Dear Robert

It has been drawn to the Committee’s attention that Helga Swidenbank, the Executive Director of the Youth Custody Service, who gave evidence with you to the Committee on 9 March this year in regard to the Urgent Notification Procedure recently raised over Rainsbrook STC had previously worked for Rainsbrook’s operator, MTC, as director of the London CRC it ran and, briefly, as effective interim managing director before David Hood filled that role in 2017. 

While we appreciate that these facts are publicly available and that no rule was broken, we feel that it would have been appropriate, given the subject matter under discussion, for Ms Swidenbank to have declared her obvious interest in MTC during the session, particularly given how clear it must have been that MTC’s performance at Rainsbrook had been severely criticized and was likely to attract comment from the Committee. 

We would ask that, as a matter of good practice, any civil servant appearing before the Committee in future be encouraged to make any such interest clear and transparent during the evidence session, and we would appreciate a commitment from you to that effect as soon as is possible. 

I am copying this letter to Helga Swidenbank. 

Best wishes

Sir Robert Neill MP

All Perfectly Normal

Oh look. Another example of the revolving door between the BBC and Tory party. The government quietly slips another Tory into a key position as the assault on the BBC prepares to move up a gear:- 

Sir Robbie Gibb has been appointed to the Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) as the England Nation Member for a term of three years from 7th May 2021 to 6th May 2024. Under the terms of the BBC Royal Charter, appointment of the BBC Chair and Nation Board Members is made by HM The Queen, on recommendation from Ministers.

Sir Robbie Gibb had a long career as a broadcast journalist in BBC News - he was head of BBC Westminster and Editor of Live Political Programmes, as well as Deputy Editor of BBC Two’s Newsnight. He left the BBC in 2017 to become Director of Communications at No10 Downing Street, stepping down in 2019. He also previously worked as an Editorial Advisor to GB News, until October 2020. Sir Robbie now works as a senior communications adviser at Kekst CNC and is a Director of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper.

The base fee for all BBC non-executive directors is £33,000 per annum. A committee chair fee of £5,000 is paid on top of the base fee for chairing one of the permanent committees of the Board. This appointment has been made in accordance with the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code on Public Appointments. The process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government’s Governance Code requires that any significant political activity undertaken by an appointee in the last five years is declared. This is defined as including holding office, public speaking, making a recordable donation or candidature for election. Sir Robbie Gibb declared that between 2017 and 2019 he was Director of Communications at No10 Downing Street.

This from BBC website:-

Sir Robbie Gibb: Former Downing Street communications director joins BBC Board

Sir Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street communications director, is joining the BBC board as the board member for England. He will start on 7 May. Prior to working in No 10 for the Conservative Party between 2017 and 2019, Gibb had a successful 25-year career at the BBC, culminating in his role as head of Westminster. Before that, he was deputy editor of Newsnight and editor of The Daily Politics and This Week.

It was in those latter capacities that Gibb worked closely with Andrew Neil, the broadcaster and publisher who is chairman of GB News - a new British news network due to launch in the coming months. Gibb played an important role in the early stages of that project, but stood down as editorial adviser in October.

His main job is working as a senior communications adviser for the consultancy firm Kekst CNC. He is also a director of The Jewish Chronicle. He will continue in these roles. Gibb was a prominent supporter of Brexit. He was in No 10 during the tumultuous leadership of Theresa May, which was dominated by the effort to secure the UK's departure from the European Union.

Since leaving front-line politics, Gibb has written several articles about impartiality in broadcasting - not least at the BBC. In one of these articles, he said the election coverage on Radio 4's Today programme was "a masterclass in why the BBC is losing the trust of its audience". He said he thought the programme was "trapped by its own 'woke' group think", and that his friends had dubbed it "Radio Misery".

In an article for The Daily Telegraph, he wrote: "The BBC has been culturally captured by the woke-dominated group think of some of its own staff. There is a default left-leaning attitude from a metropolitan workforce mostly drawn from a similar social and economic background..." In the same piece, he continued: "Almost as soon as Britain's verdict [in the EU referendum] was delivered, the rigorous rules were relaxed and anti-Brexit bias and metropolitan 'group think' crept back into the corporation's coverage."

In another article for the Telegraph, Sir Robbie made clear that the "endemic" bias he sees at the corporation extended beyond news coverage to entertainment, and especially comedy. He strongly endorsed director-general Tim Davie's firm commitment to impartiality: "I have faith that Mr Davie will make this work," Gibb wrote. "His decisive early intervention over the farcical banning of singing Prom favourites and his clear understanding of why impartiality must be the number one priority for the BBC have won him praise from ministers and BBC staff alike."

While critical, Sir Robbie has been consistently supportive of a reformed BBC, arguing publicly and privately that it is a national jewel that urgently needs to address its disconnect with conservative and non-metropolitan audiences. Interestingly, he backs the principle of universality behind the licence fee, even if the practicalities of how the fee operates may need to evolve. His appointment clearly strengthens the BBC's links not just with Westminster, but with the Conservative Party specifically.

Earlier this year, Richard Sharp replaced Sir David Clementi as the BBC's chairman. Sharp, a former banker, investor and philanthropist, is close to Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, who he worked with during the pandemic. Sunak previously worked with Sharp at Goldman Sachs. In testimony to MPs, Sharp said that the licence fee may be the least bad existing option for how to fund the BBC, though he is open to discussion about reforms.

The pandemic has highlighted both the strengths of the BBC and the severity of the challenges it faces. Covid-19 inflicted a terrible financial hit - well over £100m - at a time of already strained budgets. Yet ratings and web traffic surged as viewers, listeners and readers flocked to the BBC for trusted news. BBC News remains one of the most trusted news sources in Britain, and indeed the world. During the pandemic, the BBC also put on extensive educational programming to support home schooling, which rated well.

Moreover, a consensus inside No 10 and the government more broadly now accepts the view that decriminalisation of the licence fee is a bad idea. This follows - but is of course not exclusively the result of - an extensive and effective charm offensive on Westminster by Davie. 

   
There is a view in some quarters of the media that Dominic Cummings' departure from No 10 has removed much of the animus toward the public broadcaster. This is wrong. On the Conservative back benches, and particularly among some of the new intake of MPs, there remains strong feeling against the BBC, which is derided there as out of touch with majority opinion.

Gibb's first duty as a board member is to support the institution to achieve its public purposes. That includes advocating reforms that address the concerns felt by some of his former colleagues in politics; but also being prepared to tell those people when they're wrong about the BBC.

--oo00oo--

Addendum 

1st May 2021

From FT:-

Charles Dunstone quit museum post over government ‘culture war’

One of Britain’s best-known entrepreneurs has resigned as chair of a prestigious museum group in protest at ministers purging his board as part of a culture war being waged by the government. Sir Charles Dunstone, the billionaire founder of Carphone Warehouse, quit as chair of the Royal Museums Greenwich after the government refused to reappoint a trustee whose academic work advocates “decolonising” the curriculum, according to several people familiar with the events. 

The dispute is the latest in a concerted campaign by Boris Johnson’s government to reset the balance of opinion at the top of Britain’s cultural and media institutions, largely through an aggressive approach to board appointments. Royal Museums Greenwich oversees some of Britain’s most popular cultural destinations including the Cutty Sark, the Royal Observatory and the National Maritime Museum. 

Dunstone warned Oliver Dowden, culture secretary, that he would resign as its chair unless he lifted his veto on a second term for Aminul Hoque, a Bangladeshi-British academic in education studies at Goldsmiths, University of London, according to people close to the situation. Hoque told the Financial Times he was “shocked, disappointed and baffled” by the minster’s unexplained decision. Colleagues at the Royal Museums Greenwich described him as a “devoted and conscientious” trustee.

Dunstone, who left as chair with immediate effect in February after Dowden refused to reconsider his decision, declined to comment. A government spokesman said: “All reappointments are considered in line with the government code for public appointments. There is no automatic presumption of reappointment, and indeed in the vast majority of cases, fresh talent is added with new appointments made.” In the latest full reporting year (2019/2020), ministers in Dowden’s culture department announced 92 appointments in total, of which 31 were reappointments. 

With the enthusiastic support of Downing Street, Dowden has so far blocked multiple reappointments at top institutions, with the explicit intention of replacing them with more like-minded allies. This has included vetoing a second term for two female board directors of Channel 4, the state-owned and privately funded broadcaster. Dowden this week nominated Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street director of communications, to the BBC board. Allies of the prime minister say Paul Dacre, the former long-serving editor of the Daily Mail, is frontrunner to become chair of Ofcom, a decision expected in coming weeks. Nicky Morgan, the former Conservative culture secretary, is also tipped as the next chair of Sports England.

One chair of a big institution likened the Johnson government approach to “cultural cleansing”. Another person who has negotiated appointments with Dowden described him as treating boards like “a fiefdom”. Peter Riddell, the commissioner for public appointments, noted in a speech on Thursday that the government, had for 18 months “actively sought to appoint allies to the boards of public bodies”. “This is not the first time this has happened. Such attempts tend to go in waves,” Riddell said. “What is different now is the breadth of the campaign and the close engagement of 10 Downing Street.”

Last September, Dowden wrote to museums and galleries warning that their government funding could be cut if they removed statues and other objects associated with the slave trade and colonialism. Dowden acknowledged that some objects represented figures who had “said or done things which we may find deeply offensive”, but insisted that they played an important role in understanding the past. 

One leading Conservative said there was “an expectation that members of a board should have a similar attitude to that of the government” on such issues. “The general ethos is you should put things in context, not tear them down or remove them,” said one leading Conservative, who added that the culture department remained committed to targets for board appointments covering gender, race and disability. 

Hoque was told about the veto by Dunstone in January but was never contacted directly by the government. After he sent two emails requesting an explanation, the culture department wrote to him on Friday to say there was no “automatic presumption” of reappointment. 

MoJ Obfuscation

Another interesting example of MoJ obfuscation and secrecy from Inside Time:- 

Prison alcohol course dropped

An offending behaviour course used in prisons to help men convicted of drunken aggression has been dropped.

The Alcohol Related Violence (ARV) course was offered in English and Welsh prisons for men seen as a high or medium risk of reoffending. Using cognitive-behavioural techniques it sought to explore previous and current alcohol use, teach skills to prevent relapse into drinking, and spot patterns of how drunkenness can escalate to violence.

However, earlier this year it was removed from the list of programmes approved for use in English and Welsh jails by the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel (CSAAP).

The Ministry of Justice said the decision was taken because “there was limited uptake for this programme and the demand for this type of intervention was being met through alternative health services and the wider Offending Behaviour Programme”.

The ARV course will be “absorbed” into alternative courses, so any prisoner who had been due to join it is likely to be offered a place on another course instead.

ARV was one of 22 programmes approved for use in jails by the CSAAP. The panel has attracted controversy in the past because its membership is secret and it does not disclose what was discussed at its meetings – and because it can approve courses for use with prisoners before there is firm evidence as to whether they work.

It previously approved the use of the Sex Offender Treatment Programme, which was suddenly dropped in 2017, five years after an unpublished internal research report had identified that men who had taken the course were more likely to reoffend than those who had not.

The MoJ made no announcement at the time it dropped ARV. The move only emerged when it was omitted from an updated list of CSAAP-approved prison courses published on the MoJ website this month. It is not known whether a research study has been carried out on the reoffending rates of people who have completed the ARV course – and, if so, what the results were.

Courses addressing alcohol use which remain approved for use in prisons include the Alcohol Dependence Treatment Programme, Breaking Free, Building Skills for Recovery, and Control of Violence for Angry Impulsive Drinkers.

--oo00oo--

Another revealing article by Maya Oppenheim in the Independent:-

The rising levels of self-harm in women’s jails in the UK are “worryingly high” with some therapeutic services cancelled during the pandemic, a new report has warned. The study, carried out by the Prison Reform Trust, found the government has failed to meet almost half of the pledges it committed to in its 2018 Female Offender Strategy.

Researchers, who shared the report with The Independent exclusively, discovered the government has fully rolled out just 31 of 65 promises despite the strategy being published almost three years ago. The charity warned the recent announcement of 500 extra prison cells being built in women’s jails reverses one of the strategy’s fundamental aims to reduce the female prison population - saying they would not be required if they had managed to actually implement the failed action plan.

Peter Dawson, the Prison Reform Trust’s director, told The Independent: 

“There is little point having a good plan if you don’t deliver it. That requires a timetable, resources and measures of success. None of these are in place. Instead, the government seems to have abandoned the idea that its female offender strategy can deliver its explicit and most important outcome – a reduction in the imprisonment of women. It is prepared to find £150m for new prison places to meet the cost of policy failure, but only a pittance to secure its success. The large majority of women are sent to prison for non-violent offences to serve sentences of less than one year. It is time for the government to double down on its aim to send less women to prison by investing in community alternatives and limiting the use of pointless short prison sentences.”

----//----

A previous report by the Prison Reform Trust found 80 per cent of women in jail were serving sentences for non-violent offences. Other studies have found high numbers of female prisoners have suffered domestic abuse, while many suffer from mental health issues - with campaigners frequently warning women in prison are often victims of much more serious offences than the ones they have been convicted of.

Dr Kate Paradine, chief executive of Women in Prison, told The Independent the government had “lost its way” since the Female Offenders Strategy was formulated.

She said: “Its proposal for 500 prison places flies in the face of all its own evidence that says the vast majority of women in prison do not need to be there. We know 95 per cent of children have to leave their home when their mother goes to prison and building more prison places will only shatter more lives and unnecessarily separate families. There is another way, one that we know works. The government can listen to the evidence, implement its own strategy and divert the £150m set aside for these new prison places into community-based services, like Women's Centres, that tackle the issues, like domestic abuse, that sweep women up into crime in the first place - keeping families together.”

The latest research, which is based on the most recent data available, shows out of the strategy’s 65 commitments, 31 have been fully achieved, 20 partially achieved, while there has been zilch progress or quantifiable implementation of 14 pledges. But researchers noted even in instances where commitments were met via publication of guidance or instructions, there is a dearth of information showing whether it is successful.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “We want to see fewer women going to prison and are investing millions in our female offenders strategy to achieve this through community sentences, addiction treatment and women’s centres. Custody will always be a last resort - the new prison places will improve conditions with more single cells and greater access to education and employment, helping women to get their lives back on track.”

--oo00oo--

Blog Update

As regular readers are aware, comment moderation has been in place for some time and it looks likely to be permanent I'm afraid. It destroys much of an opportunity for discussion, but the paucity of probation-related comment as opposed to anti-Johnson and government stuff means I'm deleting much of it.

I have no problem calling out lying bastards wherever they may be in political life, or indeed examples of home grown cronyism, corruption, right wing political crap etc, etc, but I'm not letting it take over the blog at the expense of the core purpose - keeping the probation ideal alive.

I've completely given up with the union, politicians, journalists and now academics. The ever-smaller band of 'legacy' probation officers are inevitably moving on either literally or figuratively as the bright new recruits seemingly can't wait to embrace the MoJ/HMPPS command and control ethos and even if they are unhappy, are too shit-scared to say anything publicly, even anonymously.

Yes I'm angry and yes I'm fed up - but I've also got better things to spend my time on and therefore this platform will continue to wind down. However, I will reserve the option to kick it back into life from suspended animation at any time and when I feel there is something useful to say and in furtherance of the probation ethos so clearly disappearing from sight.

Addendum 

Interesting to note that only a few hours after publishing this post, a very lively discussion has started on Facebook with news that updating case notes within 24hrs is to become a 'target'. Quite understandable from a professional point of view and a longstanding National Standard, but noteworthy that rather than do something about high caseloads, HMPPS command and control ethos dictates other approaches. At time of writing, the topic has attracted 63 comments, including the status of a review of the Workload Management Tool, but all such supposedly hidden from public view.       

A Lost Cause

It's really quite simple. Being a probation officer and a civil servant is completely incompatible. I have no interest in football, but couldn't avoid noticing how the short-lived European Super League plans required dismissal of 'legacy' fans and their interests in favour of attracting 'new' ones was so very similar to that of 'legacy' probation officers and the urgent recruitment of 1,500 new ones.  

--oo00oo--   

The astute will have noticed a distinct lack of activity on here of late, pretty much reflecting my own degree of growing disinterest in the lost cause that probation has become. The union has had little to say recently; the Labour front bench spokesperson has little knowledge or interest; the independent probation service 'campaign' vanished; CRC individualism has only days left and the MoJ's stifling stranglehold grows stronger by the day. And now the Justice Select Committee has pronounced:-      

Committee reports on new model for probation services

The Justice Committee publishes a report on its inquiry into the future of probation services in England and Wales. These services have undergone major upheaval in recent years and a new model for delivering the services is due to come into force in June 2021.

As of 2020, nearly 225,000 people were under probation service provision. These services are aimed at protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Some people ‘on probation’ may have already served a prison sentence while others will have been given a non-custodial community sentence, for example being required to undertake punishments such as unpaid community work.

The new model of probation services due to be introduced in June this year is known as the ‘Unified Model’. The Unified Model replaces a policy which was introduced from 2014/15 and was widely seen to have failed.

The old policy split the probation services between the National Probation Service, which dealt with the most serious cases, and Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) which dealt with the rest. Following much criticism, the Ministry of Justice decided to end the CRC contracts early and develop a new model.

Chair's comment

The Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill MP said:

“The last few years have been very difficult for the hardworking men and women who look after our probation services. First, they had to cope with a misguided and badly implemented re-organisation. Then Covid struck, making everyone’s job doubly hard. I hope our report will help shape a much better experience. There are lots of recommendations in it but let me draw attention to a simple and important one. No probation officer should have to cope with a caseload of more than 50 clients. If we can stick to that rule of thumb, I think we have a fighting chance of improving the situation.”

Re-unifying the Probation Service

The Justice Committee report welcomed the decision to re-unify the Probation Service. It warned, however, that after the disruption of the past seven years these changes must be fully thought through, properly funded and expected to remain in place for a period of decades rather than years. The Committee sought an assurance on this from the Ministry of Justice.

The Justice Committee report also acknowledged that the transition to the new Unified Model of delivery was a “huge operational challenge” in the context of the pandemic, including changes in management systems, IT technology and buildings leases.

The Chief Inspector of Probation, Justin Russell, pointed out:

“We are talking about 113,000 cases transferring [back] into the National Probation Service and you do not want to lose any of them along the way”.

The Committee urged the Ministry of Justice to publish a detailed timetable setting out milestones towards the Unified Model going live in June and requested monthly updates on progress made against those targets.

Some services will still be contracted out

Although the new Unified Model for delivering probation has re-unified the service, it still has provision for contracting out some services to be provided by private or voluntary organisations. This is called the ‘Dynamic Framework’. It is a commissioning mechanism for providing resettlement services needed after release from prison as well as rehabilitation interventions aimed at reducing reoffending for those on community orders.

Witnesses appearing before the Committee broadly welcomed this initiative although there were some concerns about how it may work in practice, particularly for smaller, third sector or voluntary providers of services who might be unprepared, or not have the resources, to tackle a complex commissioning process.

The Committee also raised concerns about the potential for contracts to be underfunded and recommended that the Ministry of Justice set out how they are modelling these contracts financially, and what is being done to ensure that contracts are sufficiently resourced and deliverable.

Support for those leaving prison

The report notes that successful rehabilitation relies on a successful transition from prison to probation. This includes good communication between soon-to-be released detainees and probation officers, as well as the provision of help in areas such as accommodation, finances, education and employment.

The Justice Committee welcomed the additional Ministry of Justice investment which had resulted in improved services for people leaving prison and said it hoped the service would continue to improve under the new Unified Model coming into operation in June.

However, the Committee asked the Ministry to set out in detail how it intended to manage pre-release services under the new model. There were many practical challenges to address such as security clearances for probation officers visiting prisons and access to areas in prison buildings where meetings could be held.

The workforce needed to do the job

The Select Committee report on the future of probation services notes that low staffing levels have historically been a problem in the sector. The report acknowledges that staff are working through the pandemic and against the backdrop of a second major reform programme in recent years. The Committee thanked and praised probation staff for their hard work and dedication, particularly during the past year.

The Committee found that probation caseloads are still too high, even “unmanageable” in some cases and recommended that the Ministry of Justice commit to ensuring that individual probation officer caseloads do not exceed 50.

The Ministry said 1000 new trainee probation staff would be taken on in 2020/2021. Other witnesses said it would take a long time to train these recruits and added that the government’s plan to recruit 20,000 new police officers was also likely to increase demand for probation services.

The Justice Committee report said it welcomed the government’s commitment to employ 1000 new recruits but said it was not clear whether this was in addition to the 464 vacancies that already existed. It asked the Ministry for clarification on this point.

The Committee also welcomed the government’s commitment to employ more ex-offenders as role models and support staff.

--oo00oo--

Conclusions and recommendations

Transforming Rehabilitation and the Probation Reform Programme

1. A previous Justice Committee said in 2018 that the Transforming Rehabilitation looked unlikely ever to work. Time has proved our predecessors right. We welcome the Government’s decision to reunify the Probation Service and to introduce a new probation reform programme, even if we must acknowledge how unsatisfactory it is that those working in the system must face more organisational change after six years of it and a 12-month period of coping with a pandemic. We thank the CRC providers for their work over the past six years, and recognise the positive work that has been done and the innovation CRCs have brought to the probation service during this time. (Paragraph 26)

2. This is the second major probation reform programme in the last five years. The unplanned-for effect of covid-19 has only added to the challenges the Probation Service faces. The lessons of the previous, failed reforms must be learned, and the new model must provide a lasting solution that allows some stability to a vital and hard-pressed service. (Paragraph 31)

3. As the then Minister of State, Lucy Frazer, acknowledged to us, one reason for the failure of the 2014–15 Transforming Rehabilitation reforms was inaccurate modelling of how much work, and therefore profit, would go to the private sector and third sector organisations allocated more than half the probation system’s overall caseload to administer. The PAC, the NAO and other bodies, including a former Justice Committee, have highlighted how the 2014–15 reforms foundered on being introduced too fast and without sufficient planning or research into their impacts. (Paragraph 32)

4. We welcome the decision to unify the Probation Service once more. We warn, however, that, after the disruption of the past seven years, changes proposed and begun to the probation system must be fully thought through, properly funded and expected to remain in place for a period of decades rather than months or a few years. We seek an assurance from the Ministry of Justice that the new reforms will do so. (Paragraph 33)

5. There is cause for concern in the way that some goalposts have shifted as the new model has been developed. In particular, the decision to seek Probation Delivery Partners while the new model of delivery was still being developed had unfortunate consequences. Its subsequent cancellation caused significant disappointment to those private and third sector organisations whom the Ministry of Justice encouraged to put time and effort into making successful bids only to see the idea scrapped shortly afterwards. (Paragraph 34)

6. The Justice Secretary, Robert Buckland QC MP, highlighted the role of covid-19 in requiring his decision to cancel the Probation Delivery Partner programme, but we must be concerned at any possible echo of a repeat of over-rapid, under-researched reform being introduced, at great cost and inconvenience, and then swiftly reversed when difficulties arise. We recommend that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice make it clear whether his cancellation of the Probation Delivery Partner programme was a pragmatic decision as a result of the additional pressures raised by the covid-19 outbreak or a decision on principle to bring unpaid work and behavioural change programmes back within a unified national probation service for the long term. In particular, we invite him to confirm whether the Ministry plans to reconsider or revive a Probation Delivery Partner programme once the covid-19 pandemic has been contained. (Paragraph 35)

7. We recommend that the Ministry review its decision to seek partners while the new model was still being developed and to report to us on whether future procurement processes will prevent the cancellation of proposed new contacts at such a late stage in a process and after potential bidders have put considerable time and effort into nugatory bids. (Paragraph 36)

The Unified Model, Sentence Management and Advice to the Courts

8. The new unified model has the potential to increase judicial confidence, through improved communication, sharing of relevant information and a more consistent offer of support. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice sets out how it will assess whether the new probation delivery model improves sentencer confidence, what criteria will be used to make that judgment, and what research will be undertaken, and data gathered. (Paragraph 44)

9. Confidence in non-custodial sentencing among judges and magistrates - and, by implication, the public - will rise only if the suitability and effectiveness of such sanctions are improved. More needs to be done to address the range of issues that cause offending and, in particular in this context, reoffending after both custodial and non-custodial sentences. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill currently progressing through Parliament offers a substantial opportunity to increase public confidence that those who offend are serving suitable sentences, in prison and afterwards or as community alternatives. We look forward to considering firm legislative proposals on sentencing, release, parole, probation, youth justice and the management of offenders as the Bill proceeds. (Paragraph 45)

10. We recommend that the MOJ sets out what other action is being taken to improve judicial and public confidence in sentencing, particularly for the delivery of community sentencing. We recommend that the MOJ sets out what criteria it uses to measure the effectiveness of community sentencing, including the effect on reoffending. (Paragraph 46)

11. Pre-sentence reports are an essential part of probation delivery and ensure that sentencers have the information necessary to make sentencing decisions that will ensure justice and support rehabilitation. We welcome the MOJ’s commitment to improving pre-sentence reports and increasing their use under the new model and are pleased to hear that NPS capacity to prepare pre-sentence reports will be increased. (Paragraph 55)

12. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out how they intend to increase NPS capacity to prepare pre-sentence reports. The MOJ should also set out what work is being done besides this to improve the quality of pre-sentence reports, ensuring that those completing them understand and convey to sentencers what the needs of the offender are, and what is available in the local community where a community sentence may be appropriate. (Paragraph 56)

The Dynamic Framework

13. We are pleased to hear that Ministry of Justice have taken steps to make the Dynamic Framework more accessible to smaller third sector organisations, and particularly welcome the consultancy support that the Ministry of Justice have funded or made available free of charge to some smaller organisations. There is concern, however, among smaller and third sector organisations that the ambition to include their expertise in the system may be defeated by complex processes that may favour larger bidders. We support the work the Ministry of Justice is doing to address those concerns. We welcome the analysis the Department is undertaking on who is bidding under the Dynamic Framework and the issues arising from the bidding process, and we recommend that the Ministry of justice publish this analysis, alongside a plan of what measures will be taken to address any issues identified. (Paragraph 74)

14. We welcome the work the Ministry is doing to feed into the Cabinet Office review of procurement and recommend that the MOJ update the Committee on the outcome of this review. (Paragraph 75)

15. Although we recognise that contract values and volumes are indicative, we share in the concerns expressed by some of our witnesses, that in some instances projected volumes are lower than those that various organisations are currently working with. Given that contract value is based on projected volume, discrepancies in these figures, may prevent organisations from participating in the Dynamic Framework. For those that do participate, underfunded contracts may cause financial and operational issues later down the line which could affect the quality of service provision. The potential for contracts to be underfunded is of significant concern to the Committee and we recommend that The Ministry of Justice set out how they are modelling projected volumes and contract values, and also what is being done to ensure that contracts are sufficiently resourced and deliverable according to the funding that is available. (Paragraph 81)

16. No system can function fully from Day 1, but it is vital that probation service provision be as effective as possible. We acknowledge the fears of organisations such as NACRO about implementation of the Dynamic Framework, but equally note the confidence of the then Minister of Justice that services will be appropriately provided from the first day. We note the disappointment of those who may be affected by a shift from local to regional provision but appreciate why that was necessary at a time of pandemic. It is to be hoped that the ambition of including more third sector and smaller organisations with valuable specialist skills will be fully achieved in the longer term. Even given the difficulties that have arisen in its delivery, the Dynamic Framework appears overall to offer a more localised approach to service provision than was previously available. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice publish a commitment to ensure that procurement beyond Day 1 will take place at a more local than regional level wherever appropriate and where suitable services exist, to ensure that the services procured meet specific local needs. We also recommend that the Ministry of Justice also keep and publish records of procurement at regional/local levels and the volume of work awarded to smaller providers. (Paragraph 86)

17. So far as Day 1 provision itself goes, we have heard convincing evidence that some services may not be available straight away and are not clear what will be provided for those people who would use them. We invite the Ministry of Justice to set out what initial provision will be offered on Day 1 to those who need financial, benefits and debt services no longer available, a need that may be exacerbated by the conditions created by the covid pandemic. We recognise that suitable services will be made available at a later date, but we seek clear information on when that will be. We recommend that the Ministry set out a post-Day 1 procurement timeline for services not in scope for Day 1. (Paragraph 87)

Through the Gate and the new Resettlement model

18. We welcome the additional investment the Ministry of Justice has made to improve Through the Gate service provision until existing contracts end. We are pleased that this additional investment has resulted in an improved service for those in need of resettlement support and we hope that the service continues to improve under the new model of probation. We particularly welcome the Ministry’s intention to improve the integration between prison and community. All this being said, we have heard from several witnesses that the new resettlement model lacks clarity, with some uncertainty about how the model will be delivered in practice. (Paragraph 101)

19. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out how they intend the new model to be delivered practically on a local level, and how the model will work alongside those services commissioned through the Dynamic Framework. The Ministry should detail how they will ensure the “in-reach” (pre-release contact between the probation offender manager and prisoner) aspect of the new model works in practice, considering challenges often faced in regard to security clearance, access to space and the operational capacity for prisons to deliver. (Paragraph 102)

20. We note that the new resettlement model is being developed alongside the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) Model. While we welcome both models, our inquiry has highlighted some concern that the OMiC model has not yet been fully rolled out across the prison estate, which could affect implementation and success of the resettlement model. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice set out the status of roll-out of the OMiC model, including how many prisons are implementing the model fully, partially and not at all. Should the model not yet be fully implemented, we invite the Ministry to provide a timetable for its full roll-out. (Paragraph 103)

Workforce

21. Probation Officers are fundamental to the delivery of probation, and we recognise the important role they play in supporting offenders and protecting the public. The Probation Service has historically faced difficulties with staffing levels, which has resulted in Probation Officers having very high caseloads, affecting their ability to manage risk and support offenders to rehabilitate. The Committee welcome the commitment to an additional 1,000 probation officers, but remain unclear whether this is additional to the existing vacancies. We recommend that the MoJ confirm whether the pledged 1,000 additional probation officers will be in addition to the 464 existing vacancies. (Paragraph 126)

22. We recognise that newly qualified probation officers and those still in training need training, development and support, and should have smaller caseloads, but we are concerned that in the interim, caseloads for qualified probation officers will remain high. While we appreciate that many variables make setting a target caseload difficult, it is clear from Inspectorate research that caseloads of more than 50 affect the quality of work, and thus the ability of probation to meet the aims of rehabilitation and public protection. We recommend that the MoJ commit to ensuring that individual caseloads do not exceed a baseline figure of 50. We recognise caseload numbers may fluctuate below this number, but they should not exceed it. The Ministry should also set out what work is being done to reduce caseloads, beyond the recruitment of additional probation officers and what support is available to staff with high caseloads, to ensure they are able to manage risk for all offenders in their caseload adequately. (Paragraph 127)

23. We are pleased to note the Ministry’s commitment to employing more ex-offenders and welcome HMPPS’ commitment to employing 150 ex-offenders in probation. We recommend that the MOJ and HMPPS set out a detailed timeline for how it will recruit and deploy these ex-offenders. (Paragraph 128)

Transition

24. Transition to the new model in the context of covid-19 presents a huge operational challenge, particularly for operating models, IT systems and building leases. The Ministry and HMPPS have assured us that work is under way to ensure transition is successfully and completed on schedule. We recommend that the Ministry publish a detailed timetable setting out milestones towards transition, and we seek a monthly update on the progress made against those targets. (Paragraph 142)

25. We are concerned to hear that some voluntary sector organisations do not feel sufficiently involved in the process to successfully manage transition. (Paragraph 143)

26. We recommend that the MOJ and HMPPS involve voluntary organisations and CRCs in relevant communications relating to transition. We recommend that the MOJ clarify to relevant voluntary sector supply chain partners their position in relation to TUPE, including what staff members are eligible and what contract they fall into. (Paragraph 144)

--oo00oo--

Napo press release:-

The Future of Probation: Napo’s response to the Justice Select Committee report.

Napo has campaigned tirelessly over the last seven years to reunify probation following the disastrous privatisation of probation under the then Secretary of State Chris Grayling. We welcome the interest and scrutiny that the Justice Select Committee has given probation over the years and we welcome this report of their findings.

Whilst the report includes a number of key recommendations, the committee has chosen to focus on staff workloads and the number of cases that staff carry at any given time. However, Napo would urge caution on this. Probation cases vary in terms of complexity, needs, and risk management and in order for staff to do their job they need the room to focus on those complex cases. The ongoing issue of workloads in probation requires a far more holistic approach including providing the service with the resources it needs to employ the adequate number of staff, the pay and recognition staff deserve and flexibility to address workload and stress issues. An arbitrary number will become the bench mark and this may ultimately do more harm than good.

The Dynamic framework, the part of probation still being contracted out, has been badly affected by the pandemic in terms of delays to the timetable for bidding and awarding contracts. As such we are now under immense pressure to complete the process of transfer in a very short space of time. Those staff members transferring to these new providers under TUPE must be consulted with and provided with assurances, which are currently not forthcoming. It remains to be seen whether these new contracts will provide the promised involvement of specialist voluntary and third sector providers and there remain concerns that some of the mistakes of the past will be repeated.

Over all however, the report is welcome. Napo would like to thank the committee for its time but also to ask that it keeps probation under scrutiny going forward. We have a long way to go to effectively rebuild the profession, the service and staff morale. This will require further investment, a commitment by the Ministry of Justice to listen to the experts and follow the evidence.

Ian Lawrence, Napo General Secretary said: “The last seven years has taught us that you cannot have an effective probation service built on ad hoc, ideologically run policies. Probation is a critical part of the criminal justice system, of rehabilitating clients and protecting the public. It cannot do this effectively if it is starved of resources and under constant change. The Minister must now commit to providing the probation [service] with adequate funding so that it can now begin to stabilise and return to being the most effective public service justice system.”

--oo00oo--

Napo written evidence to the Committee can be viewed here. That by Unison here.