Guest Blog 100

Probation Past but not Forgotten 

Just to be upfront with my readers this blog is focussed upon the use and development of Business Processes and Computer Systems within the National Probation Service (NPS) and then a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) being based upon my working experiences from 2006 to 2016. I am not a qualified Probation Officer. But I have a long career prior to joining probation in the private sector in Business and Computer systems. First employed in 2006 within the NPS West Midland Trust, Learning and Development Unit, Selly Oak, Birmingham as a Business Support Training Officer. 

Then I jointly supported the Learning and Development Unit and the Central Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU) initially supporting the System Testing and Implementation of Delius. Then in 2013 I was appointed as a Transformation Administration Manager within the Birmingham based Business Transformation Unit (BTU). I was then transferred to a CRC in 2014 before being made redundant in 2016. 

I cannot blog on the current (2024) HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) since I have been outside the Probation Service since 2016. So essentially it is more of a historical record but the effort to write it is based upon me wanting to communicate on “a lessons learnt” basis that may influence and benefit those currently working within the HMPPS. It is also an historical record of the events I experienced at the NPS and then CRC.

So why start blogging on Probation after 8 years outside of the service?

When I was at Probation, like many others, I followed Jim Brown daily since he was telling the “truth” particularly through the blitzkrieg period of change. But over the last 8 years I have only on rare occasions popped onto his blog to see how things are going at Probation, now the HMPPS. So having done one of my normal LinkedIn posts that covered a bit about Probation, I was surprised to get a personal message to call him. Which I did and we had a brief chat on Monday 23/09/24. He asked me if I had any more relevant contributions. I explained that obviously all my experiences are now from the 2006 – 2016 period so lacking relevance to HMPPS in 2024. 

Then it occurred to both of us during our conversation that those experiences might help those trying to sort out HMPPS today. I explained that particularly my NPS experience, not my CRC experience, was a very positive part of my career, particularly in respect of the people with whom I worked. Whilst my experience of the Business Systems and Computer Systems was just the opposite. But I had started in 2006 with the best intentions of improving both of these aspects and to be perfectly frank, after 10 years of hard motivated work, I achieved nothing. I don’t know another part of my career where it was so difficult to influence and effect change to Business Processes and Computer Systems. So if any contribution on here could help those now within the HMPPS family achieve these changes now, I wouldn’t feel my 10 years was such a waste of effort. My commitment can only be a positive and constructive one since I don’t do negative or political.

So I walked out of the Probation Offices in Central Birmingham for the last time on the 3rd July 2016, having been disposed of by Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP), a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) that was now trying to run the Probation Private Services for Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland, Staffordshire and the West Midlands. I was deemed redundant and my services were no longer required. Not the best of timing for them or me. In their case with me having a long career prior to Probation in Business Systems design and implementation in the Private Sector, they needed me and others like me more than ever with the chaos now being unleashed. Instead they were dependant on the ”all knowing” but “knowing nothing” highly paid consultant swarms now descended on Probation. Many just out of university but deemed chargeable to the Ministry of Justice no doubt with a cashback into the RRP coffers. But it also has to be acknowledged that there were some very smart experienced consultants with some clearly wanting to support our side of how we wanted change implemented. That is carefully and progressively.

These consultants actually listened and didn’t just feedback but actively joined us in trying to get some constructive steer on the changes themselves and the rate of change being planned. They also took some risks within their own Consultant Management Companies, who had won the lucrative change management contracts from the MoJ, in supporting our side of the story. But unfortunately they weren’t listened to either, so blitzkrieg commenced at pace.

The tide of change from Government and the MoJ was too strong and too fast for all of us to contain or control it. They had enforced a blitzkrieg approach to changing Probation. Probation had established its fundamental principles over 100 years and these were already being improved upon as a result of the Carter Report, by a Probation Officer, and its implementation through the 2006 to 2010 period. Things were improving in a Japanese style of incremental improvements like the national use of a new Offender Management System called Delius and access to the Police ViSOR System. 

Although OASys was in most need of re-engineering it was not on the to do list. Probation had never faced a blitzkrieg Government attack before and it was very ill prepared to counter it. Other Government Departments, particularly our own HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) never came in with any support since whilst we were under attack they could standby, avoiding being attacked themselves. Needless to say HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) was also being attacked under austerity principles with many local court closures impacting the application of good and tried local justice principles. The blitzkrieg approach funded by the Government threw money at the private sector to establish the principles of probation moving to the private sector in the form of the CRC’s. So I was transferred to a CRC.

We CRC staff, being ex- NPS staff, were now considered only eligible to be treated with a sort of private sector employment status. Essentially exiled out into the wilderness. With no doubt their planned lowering of pay rates to reflect our drop in both economic and social status. Yes I was now employed by a new lowly entity in the Government MoJ come Probation hierarchy, which was soon to be dropped a peg down on bloc below the unit with the lock and keys the Prisons which were to upstage Probation in the political hierarchy creating the illogical HMPPS.

NPS Induction Training in West Midland taught the hierarchy where the Courts were the very top, supported by the Probation Service with the Prisons as a service locking them up as punishment and to protect the public. Whilst the Carter Report rightly recommended the Prison’s rightly focussed on rehabilitation whilst in a custody setting. Training Prison Officers on Rehabilitation Practices, we were always amazed at how enthusiastic they were about acquiring these new skills and looking forward to applying them within their prison settings. Just the locking up although critical was very boring and contributing to prisoners futures much more rewarding. Probation was a highly respected Court Service which has been that way almost from the beginnings of Probation as detailed in the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. Totally integrated into the Court System allowing them to administer justice and protect the public. Probation was a service geographically distributed in the community operating in support of the Courts as a Court Service.

So that was it. Probation was over for me. I had tried very hard with many other like minded and motivated people to get the Probation Business Processes into a better state. We even organised a group of Trusts covering London, Devon and Cornwall, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, South Yorkshire and the West Midland to establish a common National Business Standards System on the TIBCO Nimbus business mapping product we all had installed and were using daily. Although we tried we got little support from the MoJ in terms of this initiative which was in fact seeded from the bottom of the organisation upwards. Never the right way to get something established. 

The West Midlands had already led on Business Change with its Modelling District Projects but it was only when we combined with the Staffordshire Trust that we gained access to their more advanced use of TIBCO Nimbus which we quickly adopted. Obviously other Trusts had quite independently taken to using TIBCO Nimbus no doubt being targeted by the TIBCO sales force. Whilst we had some MoJ meetings in London where they were impressed by our TIBCO Nimbus efforts, it was never formally adopted and was not included in any MoJ Directives to the Trusts.

I suspect many in Probation may not even be aware of this TIBCO Nimbus initiative taking place in some Trusts. Even within the TIBCO Nimbus active Trusts their own staff were not always aware of its purpose and presence. Not being a subject included in any National Probation Communications for many using it was not seen as a priority. There was certainly no national sign off of the TIBCO Nimbus Business Processes thereby not making them the de facto way of working for everybody. It was a mess. Had it been better established it may have helped us better deflect some of the blitzkrieg attack on our undocumented working practices. We really had nothing concrete or national to defend ourselves with in respect of standardised business processes. With no defences it was inevitable we would lose the battle.

But the one last stand I took supported by my Business Process Design colleague along with surprisingly an RRP Consultant, was to try and convince the Reducing Reoffending Partnership Board to use our Business Processes already mapped in TIBCO Nimbus as a basis for building the new business models brought about by the creation of the CRC’s It made so much sense. This proposal to the RRP CRC Board was dated the 9th July 2015 and I still have a copy I can share on here in the future. I also initiated a brilliant commercial negotiation with TIBCO to virtually have free use of Nimbus for a period to get it established. What was there not to like. But the proposal got rejected by the RRP CRC Board.

The TIBCO Nimbus Servers were torn out of their server racking and sent for scrap. Somewhere I have photos of them lying on the scrap pile representing many years of process design and data entry work. Then beyond belief they started a Business Process Mapping Project to go around collecting all the information again from relevant Probation staff groups and then re mapping it all in Microsoft Visio a product considered very unfriendly for everyday business users being more aligned with the needs of IT Staff.

So to the end of my story at Probation with the CRC RRP making me redundant on 3rd July 2016. Exactly 1 year after our TIBCO Nimbus proposal to the RRP CRC Board had been rejected. My work Nimbus colleague was kept on to continue but without having TIBCO Nimbus and having to return to using Microsoft Visio the objective of installing business systems onto all employee desk tops where they would be used daily by the service was now impossible. My Nimbus work colleague soon left since Business Process Planning was not a priority in the midst of all the firefighting now required to maintain some sort of Probation Service.

Now just to complete the conversation I had with Jim Brown. He said write me a “taster” and I will see if I want to link to it. This is that taster. But included in it is a early High Level Flowchart for use in the West Midlands that I produced way back to illustrate the importance of having a holistic view of all the Business Systems.

The truth is I have many other resources that are now dated like all the original TIBCO Nimbus Process Maps extracted in a PowerPoint format. Along with various other methodologies and techniques we developed and used like iPresentation and iProcess along with Work Instructions. In fact lots of my historic bits and pieces accumulated over 10 years at Probation that may possibly interest probation staff historically or maybe in some cases prove worth reusing today in the HMPPS.

But to be effective though what Probation needs is what my last American Company had which was what they called its own university (Pollak University). In fact it wasn’t a University in our sense of the use of the word meaning a verified academic learning institution. But it was where all product knowledge, manufacturing knowledge, research knowledge, business processes knowledge and computer systems knowledge was documented, co-ordinated, researched and communicated. It had dedicated librarianship, research and training capabilities. Research papers could be submitted and reviewed and so forth. Essentially a “one stop” place for all knowledge and processes within the business entity. So they called it a University. 

Now if this blog got to the MoJ and it triggered them to setup up a “Probation University” that would justify all the 10 years I spent and enjoyed at the National Probation Service. The first thing that needs researching, documenting and standardising and communicating is all the Business Processes. This is about adopting an ideology that Probation can have a common set of Business Processes applied right across all geographical and business areas. To make it happen it needs a champion in this ideology and that champion being in a position at the top with the powers to implement it. There is an argument that computer systems in the future will have built into them workflow principles and this has been accelerated by the AI developments. But until these systems are developed and made available it is vital that all Business Processes are standardised and documented in a user friendly way.

Some may consider the Probation Institute established in 2014 could act like the Probation University I have proposed. My view is it should definitely form part of the Probation University. But a concern might be that once it became MoJ financed would it as a "membership" financed organisation have its independence compromised. I don't see it this way. The membership of the Probation Institute are working at the front line of the Service and their constructive contribution is vital and should be within the proposed Probation University framework. 

But the scope of the Probation University is much larger than that of the Probation Institute. The Probation University defines and drives the operational activities of Probation both staff and systems. I appreciate it's a much used cliche to suggest we should all operate like Amazon and some strong views exist suggesting you cannot apply their methods of effectively shipping goods to essentially the practice of a social science. All I would just say is let an Amazon IT system designer with their keystroke counting audit techniques and workflow engineering skills redesign OASys. The time we waste on OASys could then be spent with our clients (Do we call them clients or offenders these days?) doing our social science best practices more effectively.

Within the Probation University the study of Social and Behavioural Sciences should far exceed the focus on Business and Computer Systems. They are our prime activity. It is what we do working with our clients. So Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology and Criminology along with an endless list of other subjects that need to be included within the Probation University framework. If this blog post achieved the setting up of a Probation University whilst I am now outside the organisation it would be amazing since I could never achieve it whilst working within the organisation.

Now to share with you a High Level Offender Management Vertical Workflow Map which is now 12 years old covering Offender Management Process Flows (circa 2012) within the Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust. I am sure this could be edited in less than a few hours to accurately represent current HMPPS Probation Business Processes since I suspect much of the supporting documentation (paperwork) has remained unchanged. Although the computer record updating may have changed. I just don't know. Maybe it is a starting point to commencing Business Workflow and Process Mapping. Certainly Indeterminate Prison Sentencing has changed with the removal of IPP's by coincidence in 2012 (As usual just after the map was drawn !!!!) although their removal was from memory not retrospective. If it generates any interest I have another High Level Horizontal Workflow Map I can share showing the relationships between all those parties linked to Probation once again somewhat dated but easily updated. 

Enjoy, 

Banno

Link to High Level Map below.

Once launched use the normal "pinch-to-zoom" gesture to zoom in and zoom out of the PDF to read the small print.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pw4dIYts48SVHQxhE1iKxl5r6eil4RJE/view?usp=sharing

Trouble in Court

As court staff prepare for strike action over the troubled Common Platform IT system, we learn through a survey of magistrates conducted by their lobby group the Magistrates Association that they are not happy either. It seems they don't like things being 'done to them' rather than being part of the process! Sounds a bit familiar doesn't it? But that's the MoJ civil service way! 

It's worth reminding newer colleagues that there was a time when magistrates effectively ran the Probation Service and files had to be presented for inspection and perusal by members of the local bench on a regular basis. Ok that was before my time, but my career began when I was interviewed and appointed to the Petty Sessional District by the local bench in 1986 and very regular consultation meetings continued to be held with magistrates until of course the politicians got involved. But that's another story.    

It shouldn't cost to volunteer : Findings from a survey of magistrates

Introduction 

Magistrates are volunteers, guided by the principle of service to their local communities. This has been an underpinning feature of the magistracy for its entire 660-year history. 

The system relies solely on the commitment of those volunteers to make it work. No magistrate should, in theory, be out-of-pocket for volunteering. Magistrates can claim for expenses from His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS), to compensate them for financial costs incurred. 

The magistracy has undergone much change in recent years. Half of magistrates’ courts have closed since 2010, and the number of magistrates has halved too. Increased centralisation of administration has reduced the sense of localness, with magistrates having to travel longer distances, and the sense that the much-prized principle of local justice has been weakened. Poorly executed introductions of IT procedures and other processes have also served to significantly damage morale. Many members tell us that this has changed their bond with the role, and how valued they feel as volunteers. Against this backdrop it is perhaps no wonder that an expenses regime that leaves volunteer magistrates having to dip into their own pockets to make up the difference has added to the stress and discontent that magistrates feel. 

The Magistrates’ Association wanted to better understand the extent and nature of the costs associated with sitting as a magistrate. This report presents the results of a landmark survey of 1,362 sitting magistrate members and sets out 20 recommendations that we believe will make a real difference for magistrates.

Executive summary 

Our survey of sitting magistrates painted a deeply concerning picture of an expenses regime that does not reflect the true costs incurred, and of a workload that is not properly recognised.

Respondents told us that they faced financial loss through fulfilling their duties as magistrates. It is a cornerstone of our judicial system that magistrates are not paid, but it is fundamentally unfair that those who volunteer for public service should find themselves out-of-pocket. It is also wrong that people on low incomes face exclusion from serving as magistrates because of the financial cost. 

Our survey highlighted the inflexibility of the current expenses regime. The system does not recognise various types of activities undertaken for magisterial duties—such as remote sittings from home or preparation time before cases. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, sittings from home—while at first a temporary measure—have expanded and become a permanent element of the duties for many magistrates. Yet, the current expenses policy ignores this. The costs of essential computer equipment, as well as other extra costs incurred through sittings from home, should be covered by the expenses system. We recommend a digital hardship fund to assist magistrates on limited means to purchase and maintain the equipment required for at-home sittings. We also recommend a small flat-rate allowance for at-home sittings to cover other related costs. 

The survey found that magistrates spend considerable time on duties as part of their magistracy work over and above court sittings. These additional roles, such bench chairs and training or advisory committee members, are vital to the effective running of the magistracy. However, the time that magistrates put into them is not recognised nor claimable on a par with court sittings through the expenses system. We recommend that this changes as soon as possible, not least to bolster the morale and goodwill of magistrates. We also recommend that there should be greater transparency about the actual time commitment required during the recruitment process for new magistrates. 

The justice system relies heavily on the goodwill of volunteers. More than 90 per cent of criminal cases are dealt with by volunteer magistrates; without their work, the justice system would seize up. This was highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic when magistrates kept courts running through virtually the whole period, and quickly tackled the pandemic-related backlogs as soon as it was possible, including with nightingale courts and weekend sittings.

Yet, our survey showed that magistrates feel neither the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) nor His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) understand their needs and motivations as volunteers. Instead, they feel that consultation on changes is usually inadequate, meaning that when change is introduced it is often poorly handled and makes their roles harder. Respondents said that change is too often done to them rather than with them. So, we recommend that the MOJ and HMCTS change their whole approach to working with the large volunteer force of the magistracy. We call for a Magistrates’ Volunteering Compact, drawn up between government departments and agencies and magistrates’ representatives, based on greater respect and understanding of the role of magistrates as volunteers in the context of participatory democracy. The compact should set out clear commitments and expectations including meaningful consultation on major changes, expected time commitments, and a statement that magistrates should not find themselves out-of-pocket. 

This report highlights how external events can have a substantial impact on magistrates. The rise in fuel prices, for example, has come on top of a reduction in the mileage allowance for many magistrates that came into effect last year and hit many hard. One of our core recommendations is for the MOJ to establish a standing working group to explore key issues relating to the costs of volunteering, which would include a regular evaluation of the expenses system to make sure that it always stays relevant. 

Finally, our report makes the case for how all this impacts on the ability to attract and sustain a diverse magistracy. Our survey showed that the inequities of the current expenses system have a disproportionate impact on younger magistrates, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, Black, Asian and minority ethnic magistrates, and those who are self-employed. This presents a significant barrier to recruiting magistrates from these groups—negatively impacting the diversity of the magistracy. 

The magistracy has been described as a jewel in the nation’s democratic crown. It is one of our oldest institutions—involving thousands of ordinary people from all walks of life, giving service to their communities, for no financial reward, in the cause of justice. It has proved its resilience repeatedly, most recently in the way it kept justice going during the Covid-19 pandemic. But, at the same time, it is fragile. It is powered by goodwill, and that goodwill needs to be nurtured, not taken for granted. Our report sets out 20 recommendations for how that can be done. 

Conclusion 

This research aimed to evidence the costs involved in being a magistrate, based on a major survey conducted in March 2022 of 1,362 sitting magistrates. Our survey found that magistrates, in large numbers, reported having to make up the difference between the amounts recoverable through the expenses regime and actual costs. Magistrates are consistently out-of-pocket. 

The arbitrary amounts recovered do not reflect actual losses. This is currently a feature, not a bug, of the expenses regime, and causes widespread discontent. This leads us to conclude that the expenses regime is not fit for purpose. Our central recommendation is that the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) establishes a standing working group to consider a magistrates’ expenses that meets regularly to monitor and act on this issue to ensure it is not deprioritised. This working group would discuss updates in policy and legislation with representatives from the Magistrates’ Association and other key stakeholders and would ensure the expenses regime was as reactive as possible to external changes that affect its coverage. 

We also recommend a three-year postimplementation review of the 2019 changes to magistrates’ expenses is conducted. Our survey found that the mileage decrease from this review had an overwhelmingly negative effect that left magistrates measurably out-of-pocket and significantly dented their morale. On this topic alone, the Magistrates’ Association received over 300 emails, many of which represented benches and wider groups. 

Further, we found that the expenses regime is characterised by a level of inflexibility that created administrative burdens that could at times be insurmountable for our members, who then chose not to claim at all. While recognising the need to properly handle public money by checking claims carefully, we question whether the sheer weight of evidence required to support a claim for financial loss is always necessary. We found similar hurdles affecting claimants for childcare. Our recommendations offer simple ways to lessen the administrable burdens for ordinary magistrates. 

Separately, our survey found that magistrates’ workload was not fully recognised. Significant amounts of time spent in roles essential to the magistracy, such as sitting on an advisory committee or being a bench chair, remain completely unrecognised. Furthermore, family magistrates spend a substantial amount of time reading large bundles in preparation for a court sitting; this also is not properly recognised. 

The impact of unrecognised costs is most palpably felt, however, in the context of remote hearings. These hearings, whose use exploded at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, continue not to attract any form of ability to claim back expenses. This is despite our survey’s evidence of significant expenses, most notably in the purchase of own devices and in the use of own utilities. Available support to magistrates, such as for IT, was also found to be wanting. Our report questions why a digital hardship allowance cannot be administered for those unable to afford the cost of their own devices, why greater IT support cannot be provided for those with own devices, and why the existing subsistence regime cannot be extended to cover other costs of sitting as home? 

New legislation, which extends the use of remote sittings and places them on a permanent footing, means that remote sittings—currently mostly unrecognised by the regime—will be the norm for many magistrates. Our survey showed that time and money were particularly important considerations for young and Black, Asian and minority ethnic magistrates, reflecting a nuanced and disproportionate impact on those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. The context of rising costs of living and fuel prices provides an opportune moment for His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the MOJ to take a fresh look, once again, at the coverage of the entire expenses regime. This, coupled with an ongoing recruitment campaign that will bring the largest and most diverse influx of new magistrates the magistracy has ever seen, means they need, now more than ever, to be more agile in responding to these factors. 

The starkest findings came from those costs that were the hardest to measure but had the most significant impact: the costs to magistrates’ morale. Magistrate volunteers, like all volunteers, want to feel that they’re giving something back to their organisations and want to feel supported and consulted on changes. However, respondents to our survey often felt that changes to the expenses regime were made unilaterally, with minimal consultation with them directly. 

There is now an urgent need to reassess the relationship that senior leaders in the justice system have with volunteer magistrates, and to reaffirm their commitment to them through a volunteer compact. This should expressly affirm a commitment both to the magistracy and to the volunteers whose dedication and hard work is unparalleled. 

Our evidence is clear. Our recommendations provide simple ways to implement changes that will benefit all magistrates. The Magistrates’ Association is ready to support policymakers to ensure that there are no costs to volunteer as a magistrate, and that the expenses regime that supports them to undertake this essential role becomes an effective and dynamic ongoing process. 

It is difficult to understate the importance of working with a large volunteer force to ensure that morale, expectations and responsibilities are met. To ignore the issues raised in this report is a high-risk strategy that could undermine the magistracy. By contrast, we believe that our recommendations will help to restore the goodwill and morale on which the magistracy depends.

Recommendations 

Based on our survey’s findings, the Magistrates’ Association recommends: 

1. The existing three tiers of subsistence should be replaced with two: absences of 2-8 and 8-12 hours. This would ensure that magistrates whose full day sittings are shortened at late notice— and due to circumstances out of their control—are also able to claim. It would, in addition, be simpler to administer. 

2. The subsistence rates should be index-linked to account for inflation. 

3. Hotels booked through the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ) travel agent should be covered in all cases. The cost of an evening meal, not exceeding a reasonable and index-linked upper limit, should also be claimable. 

4. A detailed post-implementation review of the expenses schedule should take place as soon as possible to address the impact of these internal and external pressures. 

5. The MOJ should set up a standing working group on magistrates’ expenses. This should be structured to: 

1. receive regular input from magistrates and relevant organisations 

2. track updates in employment law that may necessitate change in guidance or policy regularly review the rates of expenses to ensure magistrates are not out-of-pocket. 

6. His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) should fast-track any planned improvements to the financial loss allowance claims process, review the adequacy of all magistrates’ claims processes, and store the annual declaration forms electronically so that it does not have to be re-completed every year.

7. The courts minister should take steps to remove the annual declaration requirement from the secondary legislation without delay. 

8. The MOJ must look specifically at the barriers faced by magistrates with childcare responsibilities. Claims processes, and their potential to create difficulty for certain groups of magistrates, must be a key priority for the proposed working group on expenses. 

9. HMCTS should institute a flat rate allowance—slightly lower than the current subsistence allowance—for magistrates who conduct at-home sittings. 

10. HMCTS should establish a digital hardship fund to assist magistrates on limited means to purchase or upgrade the equipment required for at-home sittings where they do not have such equipment already. This could be administered by bench chairs. 

11. HMCTS should write to all bench chairs to clarify the standards of court dress expected under the current regime.  

12. Subject to the eligibility requirements being met, and when significant pre-reading is required, this time should be treated as a sitting. Any financial loss should be eligible to be claimed under the expenses regime. 

13. The proposed standing working group needs to think creatively about how best to recognise the extra time contribution of magistrates who undertake additional judicial roles. 

14. To build magistrates’ confidence in using their own devices, regular short-burst training sessions on the use of different IT systems should be delivered. 

15. This type of regular short-burst training should also apply to IT security and handling sensitive data, and magistrates should be asked to specifically confirm that they understand security responsibilities in order to protect themselves. 

16. To safeguard morale and recognise the hard work of magistrates, HMCTS and MOJ should work with magistrates’ representatives to establish a Magistrates’ Volunteering Compact. This would be an overarching document, based on greater respect and understanding of the role of magistrates as volunteers in the context of participatory democracy. 

17. The compact should set out reasonable expectations of magistrates—such as the real required time commitment, and expectations in the use of their own devices—as well as what magistrates can expect from HMCTS and the MOJ. This should include a commitment to meaningful consultation and involvement of magistrates in decision-making that affects them, and a commitment to ensure that the expenses regime stays relevant and up to date, so that magistrates are not out-of-pocket. 

18. The standing working group on magistrates’ expenses that we propose in recommendation five should include a specific consultative element to ensure magistrates’ voices are heard. 

19. The MOJ should ensure that the true time commitment required to be a magistrate is made clear. This transparency would be fairer to applicants and would increase the sense of recognition for magistrates’ contributions. 

20. We recognise that the Applicant Tracking System has been recently initiated to collect diversity data of new recruits. In 12 months, when there is enough data, it should be analysed on an intersectional basis.

A Grand Plan

I suppose it's only natural that when you've created a vast empire, you want a grand plan. The MoJ has such a plan and they've just published it. Here are some highlights that particularly relate to probation, but I've left out much that concerns the prison estate:-

Ministry of Justice Outcome Delivery Plan: 2021-22 

Foreword

The justice system is an essential public service, relied upon by millions of victims, families and businesses across our country to deliver justice outcomes that matter to them. Throughout the past year, the dedication and hard work of our teams and partners has kept that system going.

We are working to recover, rebuild and restore the justice system to its rightful place at the heart of our society and the foundation of our economy.

First, we must continue to rise to the challenges the pandemic presents the justice system and maintain our focus on recovery.

Secondly, we need to look beyond COVID-19 and rebuild public confidence in the justice system, by:

• Building back safer: continuing to put public protection at the heart of criminal justice, cutting crime and reducing reoffending.
• Building back stronger: by ensuring the justice system works for those who need it most.
• Building back fairer: to deliver swift access to justice to deliver a first-class public service that works in the interests of all people and businesses.

Thirdly, our goal throughout will be to restore law and justice to their rightful place at the heart of society and reaffirm the position of justice within the constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom.

The whole of the Ministry of Justice is aligned behind this vision and strategy. There are clear plans for delivery of all our objectives, supported by effective governance and resources that are aligned across the Group and with our partners.

We are working to build a leading-edge organisation that is open, inclusive and welcomes innovation. Delivering the objectives set out in this plan is possible through the professionalism and commitment of our 80,000+ colleagues who all work every day to protect and advance the principles of justice.

2. Reduce reoffending

Outcome Strategy:

Our strategy to reduce reoffending is central to the government’s commitment to cut crime. Around 80% of convictions and cautions come from those who have previously offended (MoJ, 2020).

We are focusing on the interventions that are known to work: a home, a job and access to treatment for substance misuse. We will work with other government departments to deliver targeted interventions to tackle reoffending, including the roll out of transitional accommodation in five areas of the country to support those leaving prison at risk of homelessness, and fulfil our manifesto commitment to create a new Prisoner Education Service.

We are targeting our approach with other government departments to help reduce reoffending amongst young people and prevent them from offending in the first place. We will also commence delivery of the commitments set out in the Female Offending Strategy (2018), acquiring the site for the first residential women’s centre (RWC) site in Wales. This approach will support women offenders to address the underlying causes of their offending behaviour and thereby reduce reoffending.

We completed our transition to a stronger and more sustainable probation model in June 2021. This model will establish clear accountabilities, ensure that staff have the right skills to perform their duties, implement innovative rehabilitative programmes of work to prevent future crime and increase supervision of offenders outside of prison, so the courts will have confidence that monitoring will be strict and community sentences will be robust and effective.

To deliver this strategy in 2021/22 we will:

Deliver a Community Accommodation Service, including Approved Premises expansion and improvement and the provision of transitional accommodation for prison leavers at risk of homelessness in five probation regions, supported by dedicated housing officers.

We will work within sixteen prisons to test new processes and initiatives across accommodation, education, employment and substance misuse treatment to improve the rehabilitative support individuals receive in custody.

Continue the roll out of community sentence treatment requirements to new areas, to address the underlying cause of offending, for vulnerable offenders with mental health, alcohol and substance abuse issues.

To have delivered our Probation Reform Programme by unifying the probation service, as planned, in June 2021. This will improve services, build resilience and reduce reoffending.

Introduce legislative and practical changes to create strong alternatives to youth custody for children and reform the experience for the minority of those who must be detained. We will open our first Secure School by 2023, transforming the Medway secure training centre in Rochester, ensuring that young people in custody get access to integrated education, health and care.

Pilot Residential Women’s Centres, acquiring the first site in Wales.

Test new approaches to reduce reoffending and develop solutions to the key challenges prison leavers face through the prison leavers project.

Improve our electronic monitoring service, increase the use of alcohol abstinence monitoring and expand the use of Global Positioning System tagging.

Projects and Programmes

The Reducing Reoffending Delivery Programme will:

• Deliver a Community Accommodation Service.
• Deliver an improved approach to securing employment for prisoners [SDG 8.3 & 8.5].
• Improved approach to connecting prisoners to community services to continue their substance misuse treatment. (including through Health and Justice Co-ordinators in probation [SDG 3.5].

The probation reform programme will:

• Strengthen engagement and collaboration with local partners such as devolved authorities, Police and Crime Commissioners and others.
• Accelerate the professionalisation of our workforce to secure the skills necessary to deliver effective probation services.
• Improve our ability as a department to disseminate change quickly across the probation system.

1.2 Outcome Evaluation Plan

Probation reform - The evaluation programme will separate into multiple thematic areas with various initiatives expected to be piloted during the next five years. A mixed-methods approach (process, impact, economic evaluation) will be used depending on the requirements of each component part of the evaluation.

Reduce Reoffending Delivery Programme - The overall aim will be to understand how the programme has been implemented, whether it has led to the intended outcomes, and determine which ways of working should continue, be amended or be stopped completely. We are also looking to undertake a longer-term evaluation plan.

Youth Justice Programme - Aim to review the process and impacts of implementing reform change across the youth estate, focusing on the mechanisms of planning, introducing and implementing change, identifying challenges, and lessons learned to share across the estate. Impact evaluation will explore whether the programme has met its key aims of improving safety for children and staff across the secure estate and improving life chances for children in custody.

3. Deliver swift access to justice

Outcome Strategy:

Justice is a core public service relied upon by victims, families and businesses. Whether to resolve a business dispute, protect a child at risk, or bring an offender to justice – we aim to ensure that when our system is needed, it can be accessed swiftly.

Above all, this means a plan for recovery to tackle outstanding cases created by the circumstances of the global pandemic. In addition, we will take steps to make the courts and tribunals system stronger and smarter to improve the running of cases and the experience of all who use them, whether that’s defendants, victims, witnesses or lawyers. We will pursue smarter and faster alternatives to court across civil and family justice, through different ways to resolve disputes and introducing important cross-system reforms in family justice to guide families to the best outcome possible for them. This approach enables us to deliver a better experience for our users while ensuring that resources at court are focused on those who need them most. Alongside these changes we will support victims to access justice in a way that ensures they feel protected, cared for and safe. We remain committed to the sustainability of the criminal legal aid system, now and in the future, ensuring that the system that can adapt to the changing needs of defendants, practitioners and the criminal justice system of which it is such an integral part.

To deliver this strategy in 2021/22 we will:

Recover from COVID-19 and reduce outstanding cases in our courts and tribunals by:

• maximising courtroom capacity and hearing capability across the courts and tribunals estate whilst ensuring that the appropriate COVID-19 safety measures are in operation.
• optimising performance in the courts and tribunals by increasing the throughput of volumes of cases and managing the levels of outstanding caseloads.
• working with other government departments to progress ways of resolving disputes which do not involve court hearings.
• Deliver the Court Reform Programme, a key enabler to modernising and transforming the procedures and infrastructure of courts and tribunals, to further build organisational resilience and accelerate recovery, including development of the Common Platform and investing in remote hearing tools.
• Reform the pension scheme to resolve the serious recruitment and retention issues within the judiciary, and recruit 1,100 judges and 1,500 magistrates.
• Provide victims with a service in which they feel protected, cared for and safe by:
• investing in victims’ services to support all victims of crime, with a particular focus on victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse. 
• consulting on a Victims’ Law.
• publishing a cross-government victims’ funding strategy.
• publishing the Rape Review and taking forward a programme of work to address the low number of effective trials in rape and sexual offence cases.
• implementing the Domestic Abuse Act to protect people from control, coercion and abuse.
• piloting integrated domestic abuse courts.
• Respond to the Criminal Legal Aid Review before the end of the year, which aims to ensure the legal aid sector can adapt to the changing criminal justice system..

Departments supporting the outcome delivery:

Crown Prosecution Service – Responsible for prosecuting cases and the progression of cases through the criminal justice system.

Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – Responsible for legislation governing employment tribunals.

Home Office – Responsible for recruitment and investment in specialist capabilities across law enforcement; tackling neighbourhood crime; delivery of preventative interventions to reduce pressure on the criminal justice system; victim support; investments in research, evidence and data; immigration and asylum decisions, which drive tribunal demand.

Department for Work and Pensions – Responsible for welfare benefits decisions, which drive demand in social security and child support tribunals.

Department for Education – Joint responsibility for the First-tier Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) tribunal operating effectively; engagement as part of the family justice system and working with MoJ to prioritise child safeguarding issues and adoption in court.

Projects and Programmes

Through our Court reform programme

• Professional court users will be able to access a single crime platform to share and access case information, bringing greater consistency and efficiency to the way criminal cases are managed.
• Local authorities will apply online to take children into care and users will be able opt to resolve simple disputes online.

Victims’ support/law

• Deliver a cross-government strategy to better align and refine outcomes for funding for support services for victims (2021).
• Increase in victims who receive their rights and have confidence in the criminal justice system (2021).
• Consult on a Victims’ Law (2021).

Domestic abuse

• Pilot Integrated Domestic Abuse Court, which will improve outcomes for victims of domestic abuse, introduce an investigative approach in the family courts and implement the Harm Panel recommendations (2023).
• implementing the Domestic Abuse Act.

1.2 Outcome Evaluation Plan

HMCTS Reform Programme - The Overarching Evaluation is a five-year evaluation programme running alongside the HMCTS reform programme. The evaluation will help assess whether the reforms are meeting their intended aims, improving access to justice, and ensuring the justice system is fair. We have identified four main themes in the reform programme and our research is structured around these:

• Redesigning channels around user needs and a shift towards online services.
• Enhancing the use of audio and video hearings.
• Changing the physical court estate and the way it is utilised.
• Centralising processes and providing additional support where required.

Legal aid review - We will monitor the impact of changes to the fee schemes through information gathered through the billing process. The impact on the provider base will be monitored through Legal Aid Agency (LAA) management information. Sustainability and diversity impacts in particular will continue to be assessed through the data sharing arrangements secured with the representative bodies (e.g. The Law Society and the Bar Council). These data linkages provide detailed information on provider base characteristics.

The impact on the provider base will be monitored through LAA management information. Sustainability and diversity impact in particular will continue to be assessed through the data sharing arrangements secured with the representative bodies (e.g. The Law Society and the Bar Council).

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

MoJ Beseiged

Anyone watching Antonia Romero, the new Permanent Secretary, performing in front of the Justice Select Committee on Tuesday could be forgiven for thinking everything is pretty much hunky dory at the MoJ. Unfortunately for her, this published yesterday from the Public Accounts Committee, paints a rather different picture:- 

“Besieged” prisons, probation & courts can’t provide justice for “victims, offenders, taxpayers or society”

In its report published today the Public Accounts Committee says the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) "faces significant risks across the full range of its services, without a clear sense of prioritisation" and huge backlogs that have built up are causing "unacceptably long waiting times for people to access justice".

MoJ does not have a clear sense of priorities as it attempts to manage significant change in every part of the system - court reform, building new prisons and introducing, again, a new model for delivering probation services – currently all at critical stages, alongside an expected increase in demand as government implements its plans for 20,000 new police officers and sentencing reforms start taking effect.

A major programme of building new prisons is underway but threatened by an "eye-watering maintenance backlog of around £1 billion" which "poses a real threat to achieving a safe and secure prison estate".

The significant funding uplift for MoJ in the 2020 Spending Review, which included £4 billion for new prison places and £119 million to support the justice system’s recovery from the pandemic, is welcome but comes against a backdrop of deep funding cuts over many years.

Restrictive regimes in prisons during the pandemic have significantly impacted the wellbeing and life chances of prisoners, making it critical that the MoJ and HMPPS accelerate their work to improve the mental health of prisoners.

Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said:

"Victims and witnesses waiting in limbo because of the long waits for a day in Court mean justice is too often being delayed to the point of being denied. The prison estate is creaking and the new prison building programme is still years off completion. The promised extra 20,000 police will create more work for courts and prisons and put more pressure on an already severely overstretched system.

A prison system operating with a dangerous maintenance backlog continues to swallow billions of taxpayers money but fails to deliver the key benefit society expects from that investment. The probation system is still reeling from 2014's massive and catastrophic experiment in reform and its juddering reversal.

Our justice system is besieged on all sides and it is not clear the MoJ has a firm grip on this challenge even with a desperately needed funding boost. This isn’t justice for victims, offenders, taxpayers or society."

Summary

The justice system is under unprecedented pressure. The Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) is facing significant risks across courts and tribunals, prisons and probation services as it attempts to recover from the pandemic and make progress with ambitious change programmes. The court reform programme is in its final phases but still not in the clear; a major programme of building new prisons is underway but threatened by an eye-watering maintenance backlog of around £1 billion; and HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) an executive agency of the Ministry, is in the process of reunifying the probation service. These are daunting challenges, made more difficult by the need to plan for and manage the expected surge in demand across the criminal justice system from the recruitment of 20,000 new police officers.

The response to the pandemic has exacerbated existing pressures on the justice system. The backlog in the court system means unacceptably long waiting times for people to access justice. We remain unconvinced that the Ministry and HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) have robust plans in place to manage the challenges in the court system, and for reducing the huge backlogs that have built up.

We are also concerned that restrictive regimes in prisons during the pandemic have worsened prisoner wellbeing and mental health, and social distancing has made the effective provision of rehabilitation and probation services much more challenging. While we are encouraged by HMPPS’s plans for managing the risks in the prison system and probation services, the maintenance backlog poses a real threat to achieving a safe and secure prison estate.

After sustained pressure on its finances, the Ministry received a welcome uplift in the 2020 Spending Review, including £4 billion for new prison places and £119 million to support recovery from the pandemic. Even so, its long-term funding position remains uncertain and hampers its ability to make credible plans to address the risks it faces.

Conclusions and recommendations

1. We are concerned that the Ministry faces significant risks across the full range of its services, without a clear sense of prioritisation. The pandemic has exacerbated the pressure on the justice system and the systemic issues that we have pointed to in the past. Aside from its work to support the justice system to recover from the pandemic, the Ministry has a complex portfolio of 15 projects listed in the Government’s Major Projects Portfolio. Many of these projects are at critical stages, including court reform, building new prisons and introducing a new model for delivering probation services. The Ministry was unable to tell us how it planned to prioritise its efforts as it manages significant change in every part of the system alongside an expected increase in demand as government implements its plans for 20,000 new police officers and sentencing reforms start taking effect. The Ministry and its agencies welcome the significant uplift in the 2020 Spending Review, which included £4 billion for new prison places and £119 million to support the justice system’s recovery from the pandemic, but recognise that this is against a backdrop of deep funding cuts over many years.

Recommendation: In the absence of clear sense of its priorities, the Ministry should set out what contingencies it has if it encounters difficulties delivering its change programmes across courts, prisons and probation services.

2. The pandemic has significantly impacted the wellbeing and life chances of prisoners, making it critical that the Ministry and HMPPS accelerate their work to improve the mental health of prisoners. The need for restrictive regimes to maintain social distancing in prisons during the pandemic has exacerbated the existing mental health challenges that prisoners face. In 2019–20, the incidents of self-harm in prisons remained high, particularly in the female prisoner population. We welcome HMPPS’ work to specifically address the issues facing female prisoners, including maintaining family contact and one-to-one counselling support. It is vital that HMPPS continues to learn lessons from how it manages the impact of the pandemic on prisoner wellbeing and that it sustains this work in the long term. We are encouraged by HMPPS’s commitment to improve its work with others, including the Samaritans and CLINKS.

Recommendation: In its Treasury Minute response to this report, the Ministry and HMPPS should set out what progress they have made with the initiatives they put in place to support prisoner mental health since the beginning of the pandemic and the impact this has had on those in prison.

3. We have limited confidence in the Ministry’s plans for reducing the backlog in the court system, particularly in criminal courts. The backlog in criminal courts was growing before the pandemic, and many organisations have warned that it could take years to clear the backlog. But the Ministry and HMCT could not tell us what level of outstanding caseload is, in their view, acceptable. It is therefore not clear to us what the Ministry is aiming for in its plans to reduce the backlog. What is abundantly clear is the impact that delaying access to justice has on victims and witnesses, who in some cases find themselves waiting years to access justice. There is a risk that the Ministry is overly relying on the potential of technology to manage the increased demand in the court system, without yet having a clear understanding of how the rapid expansion of remote justice impacts on court users or justice outcomes.

Recommendation: The Ministry should write to the Committee within one month to set out its plan, including clear projections and timeframes, to reduce the backlog in the court system, particularly in criminal courts where the backlog is most acute.

4. Despite previous warnings, the Ministry and HMCTS do not yet have a firm grip on the data they need to understand how effective the court reform programme is or its impact on users. Despite past delays, the Ministry says that the court reform programme was on track to deliver to its revised timescale. The pandemic accelerated plans to introduce more video hearings, and it says that delays to other areas of the reform programme are within planned contingencies. The Ministry recognises that collecting the right data consistently is key to understanding whether its reforms are working and how they are impacting users in the justice system. It has plans to publish the data it has collected on the impact of remote hearings, but we are disappointed that it does not yet have a better handle on what data it needs to assess the success of the court reform programme. This is particularly worrying given our past recommendations and those published in the 2019 Digital Justice Report the Ministry itself commissioned. The Ministry accepted all the recommendations, but it appears not to have made any tangible progress.

Recommendation: In its Treasury Minute response, the Ministry should explain how it is managing the impact of the pandemic on the court reform programme, including its plans to respond to the recommendations set out in the 2019 Digital Justice report.

5. We remain concerned that the maintenance backlog poses a real threat to achieving a safe and secure prison estate able to accommodate future prison populations. The latest spending review settlement included a welcome boost of £4 billion in capital spending to support building new prisons, but only £315 million set aside for maintaining the prison estate. With a maintenance backlog valued in November 2019 at nearly £1 billion, this is significantly below what is required to maintain decent, safe prison places. The Ministry’s one-year settlement for revenue funding does not support the long-term planning that is required, and that we have repeatedly called for, to support the effective management of the prison estate. As we have seen in other sectors, there is a risk that without enough money to address resource pressures, the newly announced capital funding could end up being redirected to plug holes in the budget. The Ministry and HMPPS are confident that enough prison places are planned to meet anticipated demand, but there remains significant uncertainty in the justice system. For example, how new police officers are deployed could have significant implications for the demand for prison places.

Recommendation: As part of setting out a long-term strategy for managing the prison estate, the Ministry should explain how it will:

• work with others in the system, including the Home Office to refine its understanding of demand for prison places; and
• reduce the maintenance backlog in the existing prison estate

6. Despite the efforts of staff during the pandemic, there are clear signs of strain on people working across courts and tribunals, prisons and probation services. We remain concerned about the unprecedented pressures facing frontline staff at this time. HMPPS says that probation officer caseloads are high but manageable, and that it is seeking to address high and unbalanced caseloads for probation officers as part of the unification of probation services in June 2021. HMPPS also says that managing prison staff absences during the pandemic has been a big challenge, though at the time of our evidence session, 10% of prison staff were absent, and more staff are returning to work. We welcome the news that HMPPS has pressed on with recruiting new prison officers, particularly given the expected increase in the number of prisoners as government recruits 20,000 new police officers.

Recommendation: The Ministry, HMCTS and HMPPS should identify and agree with relevant professional bodies specific actions to support staff working across the system to manage the strain of pandemic recovery efforts, and how it will monitor and support staff through to the end of the pandemic.

Latest From Napo 219

Here is a slightly edited version of the latest mailout from Napo sent yesterday:-

Solidarity with all affected by the tragedy in Beirut

Some members will have been directly affected by the explosion in Beirut this week which has wreaked havoc on residents of Beirut and Lebanon as a whole. Napo would like to express its solidarity and condolences to all those affected by the tragedy and hope that the City and people of Lebanon can recover from the devastation.

Advice for members who have been shielding or have additional vulnerabilities to Covid-19

Government guidance on shielding and protecting people who are clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID -19 officially changed on the 1 August 2020. Napo advises that members who have been shielding should continue to be vigilant and continue to work from home wherever possible. ‘Shielded workers’ are those with health conditions that make them more likely to experience serious complications from a Covid-19 infection, so they have needed to follow more stringent guidance on social isolation.

The government decision to pause the guidance on shielding in Napo’s view is premature. Therefore, Napo has been in consultation with the employers to make sure that any individual who was previously shielding is not forced to come back to the workplace and staff should continue to work from home if they are able to do so. If any member of staff is considering returning to the workplace or is asked to come back into the office, your employer must provide you with an individual risk assessment so that this can be undertaken in a Covid secure way.

Napo advice is that all staff who are deemed to be at heightened risk e.g. clinically extremely vulnerable, in the vulnerable group and/or from a BAME background should formally request an individual risk assessment be undertaken before returning to the workplace. If you encounter any difficulty from the employer providing this essential protection please contact Napo at info@napo.org.uk and we can assist you and make sure that your health and safety is protected.

Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs)

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

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

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

Court Recovery Consultation

Siobhan Foreman is Napo’s lead for Court work. She is now meeting regularly with the NPS Lead Director for Courts.

Risk Assessments

Risk assessments should be in place for Courts, including the probation areas in the Court buildings. These should be live documents and can be reviewed at any time, especially with changes to circumstances or fresh concerns. Work is underway to determine maximum capacity for NPS staff returning to work in Courts.

Access to Court entrance and exit is varied and remains an ongoing issue for some NPS Court staff. We have been advised a working group has been set up to address this issue and discussions are ongoing between HMCTS (HM Court and Tribunal Service) & HMPPS. The barriers appear to be the unsuitability and footfall of some Court buildings, however, HMPPS are confident that the issue will be resolved over the coming months and 99% of NPS Court staff will have access to HMCTS staff entrance and exits.

Extended Working Hours/Recovery/ Court EDM

We are told that the HMCTS strategy regarding the backlog of cases will be launched very shortly. There is a significant backlog of cases and nearly every case is estimated to take 25% longer than previously due to Covid-19.

HMCTS will adopt a 4-Pillar approach by;

1. Use of Nightingale Courts which can be set up in other suitable establishments, following appropriate risk assessments.
2. Extended operating hours/staggered operating hours with overtime available and weekend working. It has been confirmed this will be on a strictly voluntary basis and payments will be on NNC terms. There is an acknowledgment that there are not enough Court staff to meet the need and discussions are ongoing about how to address this issue. Full consultation with unions regarding this will take place prior to decisions being made.
3. Extend use of IT, for example Cloud Video Platform for PSR interviews, remand courts etc.
4. Maximise use of Court estate. There are some Courts which are not being used to their full capacity or have been closed and work is ongoing to look at the suitability of opening Court rooms.

If you are a Napo member either managing or working in Courts and have any queries or concerns you would like Siobhan to raise at these meeting please email.

Napo AGM 2020 - Motions

Just a reminder that the deadline for the submission of motions to this year's AGM is noon on Wednesday 12 August 2020. All the information you need and forms etc. can be found HERE.

Napo HQ

Coronavirus and Criminal Justice

We all know coronavirus is changing everything and yesterday the Institute for Government published a report on what they think might be the effect on the criminal justice system. As with so much other high-level thinking, I'm always amazed how probation hardly gets a mention. How can this be? 

The criminal justice system

How government reforms and coronavirus will affect policing, courts and prisons

The UK criminal justice system is facing unprecedented court case backlogs and record prisoner numbers.

These joint pressures will be the result of delays to court hearings caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and the government’s plan to recruit an extra 20,000 police officers leading to an increase in the number of people facing criminal charges.

Published in partnership with the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, this report calculates that the prison population could rise to up to 90,000 – its highest-ever level – and possibly over 95,000 by 2023/24.

Prisons in England and Wales are already close to capacity, with cases of violence and self-harm increasing sharply over the last decade. The government’s pledge to provide 10,000 additional prison places is unlikely to be ready to meet the predicted rise in prisoner numbers, while an extra £250m a year of spending would be required just to maintain current levels of performance in prisons.

At the same time, the coronavirus lockdown has seen courtrooms closed for all but a small number of priority cases and jury trials are suspended altogether. This research shows that waiting times to hear cases could increase by more than 70% in the event of a six-month lockdown, with many defendants and victims forced to wait more than half a year for trials in the crown court.

This would result in the highest average waiting time ever recorded. To resolve this case backlog, the report calculates that the government would need to spend an extra £55m–110m a year for two years to run the necessary extra trials.

Summary

The police, criminal courts and prisons have been subject to deep spending cuts over the last 10 years and some aspects of performance have subsequently declined. The Boris Johnson government has promised more money, but its plan to increase the number of police officers by 20,000 will put pressure on other criminal justice services: more officers will likely require the courts to process more cases, and the almost-full prisons of England and Wales to house more criminals. 

On top of this, the criminal justice system will now have to manage the effects of the coronavirus pandemic. Some prisoners are being released early and guidance on police charging decisions has already been updated. Most starkly though, the crisis had led to an unprecedented restriction on the courts’ ability to process cases. Without subsequent additional spending, there will be bigger case backlogs – and therefore delayed justice – indefinitely. 

The spending review planned for this year has been delayed. But when it comes, policy commitments such as more police officers, combined with the effects of coronavirus, mean the government will need to provide substantial extra spending for courts and prisons if it wishes to deliver on its manifesto promise of ‘world class public services’. 

The impact of planned government policy on courts and prisons 

The government’s criminal justice reforms, most significantly the plan to increase the number of police officers by 20,000, will place substantial pressure on the rest of the criminal justice system. 

The scale of the impact will depend on how this increase in police officers affects the number of cases charged by police. Over the last few years, the number of charges per officer has fallen. This fall has been attributed to an increase in the volume and complexity of digital evidence; an increase in the severity of crimes; a fall in the capacity of the Crown Prosecution Service, which makes charging decisions alongside the police; and an increase in ‘non-crime’ demands on police time, such as mental health incidents.

In this report we model three scenarios for how police charging will evolve over the next few years, each of which has different implications for courts and prisons. Our main findings are: 

• In our ‘low demand’ scenario, charges per officer continue to fall at the same rate as they have since 2010. Under this scenario, the additional police officers would create little additional work for the courts and prisons – overall charges, and therefore court cases and the prison population, would be stable over the next four years. However, this would likely mean public and government disappointment at police performance, given the money spent. 
• In our ‘central demand’ and ‘high demand’ scenarios (in which charges per officer are stable and rise again, respectively), charges would increase. Both these scenarios imply a bigger impact for the crown court than for magistrates’ courts. The number of cases received each year by the crown court would – by 2023/24 – surpass 2016/17 levels under our central scenario. In our high demand scenario, cases received would rise close to their highest level since the turn of century.* 
• In both our ‘central demand’ and ‘high demand’ scenarios, the prison population would increase to its highest ever level – reaching over 95,000 by 2023/24 in the high demand scenario – and well beyond planned prison capacity. In both scenarios, a higher proportion of prisoners would be short term (that is, serving sentences of less than 12 months). Prisoners are more burdensome to look after when they first enter prison, so this would increase pressure on prison officers even further. 

The impact of coronavirus 

On top of existing government policies such as the 20,000 extra police officers pledge, the criminal justice system must now also handle the impact of coronavirus. 

It is already having an impact. The volume of recorded crime has fallen due to coronavirus and officers’ time has been partially diverted from investigating crimes to enforcing the government’s lockdown. The police workforce has also been diminished due to large numbers of officers taking sick leave or having to self-isolate. As a result, the number of crimes charged could fall substantially. But the ability of courts to hear cases is likely to fall even more dramatically as courtrooms are closed for all but a small number of priority cases, and jury trials have been suspended altogether. 

In this report we model alternative scenarios for the impact of coronavirus on the police and courts, to show how the criminal justice system could be affected: 

• Police – charging volumes fall by 0%, 20% or 40% for three or six months. 
• Magistrates’ courts – the volume of less serious, easy-to-process cases** falls by 25%, and other cases fall by 50%, 65% or 80% for three or six months.
• The crown court – the volume of jury trials falls by 100% in April, and then by 70%, 85% or 100%, and non-jury trial cases fall by the same rate as magistrates’ cases, for three or six months. 

Our scenarios show that coronavirus could create a major backlog of cases. If the shutdown of courts lasts for six months, our central projection is that waiting times would increase by 60% in the crown court (from an average of 18 weeks to 29 weeks) and stay that long indefinitely without further action. 

The government could try to conduct more hearings via video or over the phone. However, there are concerns that virtual courts, where defendants are not in the same room as the magistrates, judges and juries presiding over their cases, could result in unfair treatment. Justice delayed is preferable to justice denied, and the government should instead focus on reducing the backlog once the coronavirus crisis is over. If the government provided additional funding to enable the criminal courts to increase the number of cases processed back towards levels seen in 2015, waiting times could be cut back to pre-crisis levels within two years of the crisis ending. 

The pressure on prisons from coronavirus is quite different. A fall in court cases will lead to the prison population being smaller in the short term (by around 15% if the court shutdown lasts for six months), implying spare capacity. But there is also a high risk of the virus spreading in prisons, and prisons are under pressure as up to 25% of staff are on sick leave or self-isolating. As a result, the government is taking steps to further reduce the density of the prison population by releasing prisoners early. As the turnover of the prison population is quite high, any reduction in prison population will not last for long, especially if the courts take action to remedy the backlog. 

Implications for government spending 

Our analysis shows that the government will need to spend more on courts and prisons if it wishes to maintain their performance in the wake of the coronavirus crisis, and as the impact of policy changes such as additional police officers is felt. 

The pandemic has meant that the government’s spending review, which was due to set out government spending plans for the next three years, has been delayed. When the spending review happens, perhaps in 2021, the government needs to set out a plan for the criminal justice system as a whole – recognising the knock-on effects of each part of the system on the rest. 

It will also need to account for the impact of the decisions taken over the last 10 years, when spending on the police, criminal courts and prisons was cut faster than demand for any of these services fell. In the courts, an initial increase in backlogs and waiting times has been reversed in the last few years. 

But in prisons, levels of violence, poor prisoner behaviour and self-harm have increased rapidly. This means that the criminal justice system is entering this next phase in a weak position – even maintaining existing service standards will be difficult.

The spending envelope for public services that was set out by the chancellor Rishi Sunak at the budget in March 2020 implied much more generous spending settlements over the next few years for unprotected services – that is, those outside of health, schools, defence and overseas aid – than they have received since 2010. Based on those figures, we would expect spending on courts and prisons to increase by 10.5% in real terms between 2019/20 and 2023/24. 

Taking into account increases in demand and cost pressures from wage increases over the next few years, these settlements might just be enough (in the medium term) to maintain the performance of courts and prisons in our central demand scenario, if small efficiencies are made. However, in our high demand scenario, we estimate that the government would need to devote an additional £372m a year to the criminal courts and prisons by 2023/24 to avoid standards slipping. 

The government must also pay attention to the physical and human assets of the criminal justice system. Additional investment is needed in prisons to ensure there are enough places for growing numbers of prisoners. The government has pledged to build 10,000 additional prison places, but these are unlikely to be ready quickly enough to house the expected numbers of new prisoners – and previous governments have struggled to build prisons as quickly as planned. Recruiting enough police officers, judges, court staff and prison officers may also prove difficult, especially as the police and prisons may be fishing in a similar pool of applicants. 

Finally, to address the court backlog that will be generated during the coronavirus crisis, we estimate that the government will need to devote additional spending to the criminal courts for up to two years after the crisis: £55m–£110m per year for two years would be sufficient to clear the backlog in our central scenario and return waiting times to 2019/20 levels. This funding would need to be agreed outside of the spending review process if the government wishes to start reducing the backlog in this financial year.

The whole report can be found here.