Time To Try Something Else

Many in probation would say OMiC or Offender Management in Custody has been a disaster and a clear sign of HM Prison Service having the whip hand in HMPPS. The Howard League is clear about what needs to happen:- 

What to do about Probation?

We have heard a lot about prison overcrowding over recent weeks, not least because of the Howard League’s own efforts, but there is overcrowding in probation too. And that matters, because the probation service is going to be asked to do more in the future.

Shabana Mahmood has made a welcome commitment to recruit 1,000 more trainee probation officers but as she acknowledged in Parliament, this is not new investment but a redeployment of resources. Probation will need that new investment and one place where the money could be found is in the budget currently earmarked to build new prisons. We shall see if the Ministry of Justice is able to follow the logic of its own announcements in the coming months.

In the meantime, what does probation reform look like? The Howard League is clear that the probation service should be delivered within a localised structure and with independence from the prison service. See, for example, the evidence we gave to the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry into community sentencing.

Such a restructuring will take time, however. What could ministers do right now to address concerns around probation caseloads and ensure, as we have said, that probation is equipped to be the ‘ultimate guarantor of public safety’? Here is one idea.

The probation service currently seconds a significant number of qualified and experienced probation officers to prisons. At the time of the last joint inspection in 2022, it amounted to 135 senior probation officers and 626 probation officers (although the targets for recruitment amounted to 206 senior probation officers and 797 probation officers).

Readers might be questioning why there are hundreds of probation officers working in prisons. They would not be wrong. The joint inspection into the reasons why, the Offender Management in Custody’ (OMiC) model, found that it was “simply not working”. Inspectors found shortfalls in public protection work, information sharing, and relationship building between prison staff, probation workers and prisoners. They went on to remark:

Despite transfer of almost 800 probation officers to POM [‘prison offender manager’] roles in prisons, we found very little added value from these posts. They had little direct contact with prisoners and were not clear about their roles and responsibilities under the OMiC model. Handovers to COMs [‘community offender managers’] were often of poor quality and little work was completed to prepare prisoners to work with COMs for their resettlement. We found little contact by POMs with prisoners, to work with and complete sentence planning with them.

When something is simply not working, it is time to try something else. The government should redeploy those probation officers working in prisons within the community. Work to prepare people for release from prison can be done just as effectively, if not more so, beyond the prison gates.

There may be resistance from within HMPPS and from those probation officers seconded to working in prisons. It is, as one former chief probation officer has remarked, a simple case of “the pressures in the prison probation officer role not matching those of the community probation officers. There is absolutely no chance of a ‘prison offender manager’ being caught up as the responsible supervising officer in a Serious Further Offence review.”

That shouldn’t stop the Ministry of Justice grasping the nettle, to reiterate our current mantra, and making the change. To deploy so many probation officers in prison when community workloads are so high is just irresponsible.

Andrew Neilson, Director of Campaigns

Comments

This is an interesting take. As an OMiC Senior Probation Officer, I can hardly be distinguished as being impartial to the above, however, I can certainly provide a ‘front-of-house’ view. The concerns I have with this proposal:

1. Many COM’s are overstretched to such an extent that they are unable to prioritise their custodial cases. Therefore, many POM’s go above and beyond the OMiC model to make up for the shortfalls from community teams. If OMiC is dissolved, there will be tens of thousands of prisoners who may feel neglected.

2. OMiC staff retention is generally healthy – transfer POM’s into the community against their will, then they will simply leave the service. Alas, we will have staffing issues in both the community and custody.

3. Due to community staffing levels, OMiC has never had the opportunity to launch as intended. The sensible thing to do would be to wait for the conclusion of the acute recruitment drive and then assess the shortfalls of OMiC.

In contrast, my view is that OMiC has the capacity to work effectively with the following proposals:

1. POM/COM handover date is pushed from 8.5 months prior to release, to 3 months before release. This will allow the COM more breathing space to prioritise community cases, and will put the onus on OMiC/resettlement teams to complete Approved Premises referrals/ generic accommodation referrals.

2. Parole reports, in my view, are the wrong way round. As drawn on above, POM’s generally spend more time with cases as they are more accessible – so they know them best. Parole reports should be led by the POM, with the COM providing an RMP to effectively manage said prisoner should they be released.

--oo00oo--

Andrew. I agree and would suggest a further clarification of the role of OMU, POM and COM as experience suggests that there is much confusion over who does what and particularly when it comes to the continuum of sentence planning – preparation for release – post-release supervision. OMU and POM can be the same person but have limited planning/discussion/hand-off with COM. COM personnel changes are frequent. So yes, leave the OMU to focus on sentence planning and pull the POM and COM roles together outside the prison to prep the individual for what comes next and then support them through it. That’s a much simpler system. And the continuity of an individual POM/COM probation officer building a relationship through planning for release whilst an individual is inside and supporting that same individual post-release could provide enormous benefits to all. Even if there is a handoff to a specialist community PO a month after release, having the continuity from the POM/COM ensures a simpler and, logic would suggest, more effective transition.

OMiC Not Working - Shock!

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

Offender Management in Custody model ‘simply not working’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--oo00oo--

Foreword 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charlie Taylor HM Chief Inspector of Prisons November 2022 

Justin Russell HM Chief Inspector of Probation November 2022

--oo00oo--

Recommendations 

HM Prison and Probation Service should: 

1. review the OMiC model to ensure that: 

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

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

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

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

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

f. resettlement activity is coordinated and fully integrated with OMiC 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional probation directors should: 

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

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

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

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

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