Being a Former Prisoner

I notice that former prisoner and campaigner David Shipley has been interviewed for British Thought Leaders on the subject of our prison system:-

I watched it to the end trying desperately to avoid thinking this is what TV might look like if run either by Conservative Central Office or a religious sect. Anyway, the NTD or New Tang Dynasty Television budget certainly doesn't extend to employment of the most engaging of interviewer, or indeed set design, but many will find the content of the interview will provide much food for thought. Probation starts about 36 minutes in.  

--oo00oo--

The following article  by David Shipley was published on the CAPX site in June 2023:- 

As a former inmate, I know just how badly our prisons need reform

Before being sentenced to 45 months in prison for fraud, I knew that British prisons were bad. I expected endemic violence, drugs and filth. What I found inside still horrified me. Yes, our prisons are dirty, dangerous and awash with drugs. What’s much worse though is that they make prisoners more likely to reoffend, costing British society over £18bn a year.

This might seem counterintuitive. Surely locking criminals away protects us, and reduces crime? To an extent this is true. However, the reality is that only about 10% of the prison population are ‘lifers’ or IPPers, on indeterminate sentences. Almost all other prisoners will be released one day. The UK imprisons about 85,000 people at a time and about 45,000 of those are released each year. An effective prison system would do everything possible to ensure released prisoners become productive members of society rather than reoffending.

Unfortunately our prison system is far from effective. Over 31% of prisoners are proven to reoffend within a year of their release. As police only solve about 9% of reported crimes the real reoffending rate is likely to be higher.

Almost all prisoners are jailed for breaking society’s rules. An effective prison system should teach inmates to respect rules. Unfortunately our prisons also teach that rules, rather than being respected, should be circumvented whenever it is convenient to do so.

The prison system suffers from having too many rules. While some, like prohibitions on weapons, phones, drugs or alcohol, are sensible and consistently applied, others are seen as trivial or ridiculous by prisoners and staff.

For example, most prisons have a ‘no vaping on the landings’ rule. In my experience this is almost never enforced. At HMP Wandsworth prisoners and officers often vaped while walking about the wings. I once watched a very new officer tell two prisoners to stop vaping, only to be laughed at by those men, and by other officers.

Another rule bans trading between prisoners, with the intent of preventing debts and the violence that can follow. In reality, a huge volume of trade occurs, with prison officers turning a blind eye and sometimes even facilitating it. I often observed officers in Wandsworth transporting ‘canteen’ items from one cell to another as a favour to prisoners.

When the people in charge have such little respect for rules, prisoners learn exactly the wrong lesson; rules shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Further, rules, and their application, vary hugely between prison, meaning that each time an inmate is transferred he has to adapt to a new system. Communications are often lacking. In 2022 the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) found that:

‘The communication of prison rules and procedures by word-of-mouth could be even worse. Staff might get exhausted with prisoners constantly asking the same things. prisoners might pass on incorrect information, genuinely and on purpose’.

A better approach would be a ‘zero-based’ review of prison rules. For example, we probably no longer need the ban on maps which resulted in my copy of Risk being impounded at HMP Wandsworth. Prison governors must ensure that retained rules are communicated and consistently applied by all staff.

Perverse incentives

Prison incentive structures are also flawed. At HMP Wandsworth in the summer of 2020 a prisoner assaulted his elderly cellmate so violently that the man was hospitalised. Officers rewarded the attacker with a single person cell and a desirable, unsupervised job in the gardens. Another man destroyed his cell, ripping pipes and fittings from the wall, and staff found him an Xbox. Those prisoners who made noise and complained would often be allowed more time out of their cells, while those who sat quietly suffered in isolation.

Why does this happen? Being responsible for a wing full of prisoners is a demanding, stressful and challenging job. This is exacerbated by what Alex South describes as ‘benchmarking’, an MoJ policy which drives prisons to use as few staff as possible for every process. Prisons themselves are traumatising environments. Every shout and bang echoes off steel and concrete. Chains jangle. Locks thunk. Hundreds of near-strangers crammed together, watching one another. While I, and every former prisoner I know, carries that trauma, I also believe our prisons harm those who work in them. A former soldier I met at HMP Hollesley Bay said to me that ‘prison is as strange as war, and as hard to explain to someone who hasn’t been there’.

The result is that staff often burn out. Alex South says that ‘almost every officer’ develops their ‘own version’ of this trauma. Nightmares and anxiety are common. So our experienced prison officers quit, or become so emotionally deadened that they lose all empathy. Over 40% of prison staff want to leave.

As a result prison wings are staffed with a small number of often inexperienced officers who regularly choose to placate prisoners because it’s easier than demanding rigorous, consistent standards of behaviour. Every day prison shows inmates that antisocial behaviour produces better outcomes. Why would we expect them to behave differently on release?

Prisons must retain high-quality staff, ensure that enough of them are present on wings and that they have the direction, leadership and support to hold the line against antisocial behaviour. Of course this will require more funding.

A further weakness in prison incentives is the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme. In theory this rewards good behaviour and punishes rule breaking. Unfortunately other than the loss of a TV, the downsides to being on ‘Basic’ rather than ‘Standard’ or ‘Enhanced’ are limited, and most prisoners secure Enhanced status within weeks of arriving. At that point unless they are caught doing something particularly egregious, inmates will remain Enhanced until their release.

An effective incentive system would have more layers, and take longer to progress through. It could also be explicitly linked to transfers to lower security and open prisons.

School for scoundrels

Ensuring that our prisons teach inmates to obey rules and behave in a prosocial manner isn’t enough though. We must also ensure prisoners leave prison with the skills necessary to secure legitimate work and support their families.

Prison education is very challenging. A quarter of prisoners are care leavers, over 40% were permanently excluded from school and nearly a third have a learning difficulty or disability, while 57% of prisoners have a reading age below that expected of an 11 year old. I witnessed prisoners unable to read well enough to understand the literacy tests they’d been asked to complete. Ofsted and HM Inspectorate of Prisons conducted a joint inspection into prison literacy education in 2022. They found that ‘few teachers know how to teach prisoners to read, resources are inadequate and there are no meaningful measures of progress’ and ‘contracts for education providers’ do not reward literacy programmes.

Education for prisoners who are literate is not much better. Qualifications are often unaccredited and of no value outside the prison system. In some cases this is a result of the tendering process. John, the owner of a prison education provider, told me that he recently lost a tender because the prison chose an unaccredited provider as they were £10,000 cheaper. This approach means prisoners spend time completing courses which do not provide access to further education upon release and offer little to employers.

One exception to this grim picture can be found in our open prisons. These establishments house around 4,000 prisoners who are considered unlikely to abscond and who aren’t believed to pose a risk to the public. Subject to further tests, prisoners in open conditions are able to take advantage of ‘Release on Temporary Licence’ (ROTL) to study or work at external educational institutions, travelling there each day and returning to the prison in the evening.

ROTLs provide fantastic opportunities. I spent the second half of my sentence at Hollesley Bay, an open prison on the Suffolk coast. Men there attended local colleges and universities, completing robust and meaningful courses. One prisoner I came to know well had left school at 16. With two years left to serve he applied successfully for a degree at a local university. By his release date he’d completed the first two years of a BA, and managed to find a full time job via the university.

The Commons Education Committee accepts Dame Sally Coates’ 2016 recommendation that ‘every prisoner must have a Personal Learning Plan that specifies the educational activity that should be undertaken during their sentence’ but acknowledges that ‘this is not happening consistently’.

Prison work is similarly poor quality. The MoJ says ‘Having a job on release helps to support people leaving prison rebuild their lives, reducing reoffending and preventing future victims of crime‘. But the reality falls far short. Most prison jobs are make-work, pay a maximum of about £25 per week and do little to prepare prisoners for seeking employment on release. At Wandsworth I worked in what must have been the most overstaffed library in London. Ten of us performed a job that one or two would have managed in the community. This is typical of prison jobs. The aim is to have as many inmates as possible ‘working’, whether they’re developing real skills or not. Even so, many prisoners don’t participate at all, preferring to spend day after day in their cells.

Again, open prisons do it very differently. During my time at Hollesley Bay hundreds of men left the prison each morning to work in local factories, distribution centres and retailers. They received fair wages on which they paid tax. For many this was the first time in their lives they’d earned honest money. Each prisoner also paid a substantial deduction towards the Victim Surcharge Fund. Even after these deductions men were able to save money, meaning they’d be able to afford to live upon release. Some sent money home to their families supporting their loved ones for the first time in years. The self-respect, appreciation of honest work and strengthened relationships all helped these prisoners be less likely to reoffend on release.

Making prisons forces for change

How do we fix all these huge problems? We would need to start by expanding the Open prison estate. Far more low-risk prisoners could be housed in open conditions, saving approximately £15,000 per prisoner per year. Once in open conditions the expectation should be that most prisoners spend their days on ROTLs, either working or studying in the community.

Alongside this, a ‘zero-based’ review of prison rules would establish a new, clear set of rules and policies including around antisocial behaviour. These rules would then need to be enforced consistently and robustly.

We should also develop a bespoke, personal plan for each inmate on their arrival in prison. This would identify education and training needs, with the goal being greater employability on release. All courses would need to be accredited and recognised outside prison. Prisoners would be expected to participate enthusiastically in this plan, with progression through a more graduated IEP scheme, and transfer to open conditions dependent on this participation. This would mean an end to prisoners wasting endless days in their cells.

Of course, this greater investment in education would cost. Moving a greater portion of the prison population to open conditions could free up a substantial amount from the existing prisons budget, and to the extent that further spending is required we should remember that reoffending costs over £18bn every year. Reducing that cost, and turning career criminals into productive, working, tax-paying members of society would be of huge benefit to the UK.

Many will say that prisons should be tough, punishing places and that criminals need to pay their debt to society. Perhaps that’s true. But I’m not sure what we achieve in having prisoners waste years on their bunks, or completing unaccredited courses. Having to study or work full-time seems tougher than a diet of daytime TV, and it will change lives for the better.

Our prisons could be powerful places for change. They could ensure that the vast majority of prisoners are released with more respect for rules, a less antisocial attitude, better qualified and more able to find honest work. If we achieve this we will live in a country with less crime, more social cohesion and a healthier economy.

David Shipley is a writer, speaker and former prisoner.

Praise For ROTL

A few days ago the Daily Mail published a photographic undercover piece about a female prisoner on day release (ROTL) from HMP Askham Grange, working a shift at the local McDonald's and returning correctly to the prison. Absolutely nothing unusual or newsworthy about a routine process designed to assist rehabilitation, but intended to stoke negative comment and hysteria from the paper's largely right wing readership. 

Sadly I suspect we can expect loads more of this as we head towards a general election with crime and punishment yet again seen as a promising battleground for attracting votes. Interestingly, it prompted this reflective piece from the politically conservative Spectator, reminding me of the days when crime and punishment was quite rightly not regarded as a political football:-  

Don’t condemn McDonald’s for giving prisoners a day job

In the aftermath of Daniel Khalife’s escape and recapture, prisons are in the headlines. Even the most commonplace events, like a prison stabbing, are being widely reported. So, too, is the revelation that ‘prisoners are working in McDonald’s’: that was the gist of an article in the Daily Mail which revealed that a female prisoner was flipping burger and serving customers. But rather than condemn this initiative, we should praise McDonald’s for taking on inmates and giving them another chance.

The female McDonald’s worker, who returned to Askham Grange in Yorkshire after her shift, is far from alone in being let out for the day: approximately 100,000 Releases on Temporary Licence (ROTLs) occur every three months. These releases mostly take place from Category D or ‘open’ prisons. Open prisons are low security establishments for inmates in the last three years of their sentence who are deemed to pose a minimal risk. They’re also one of the few bright lights in our prison system, which offer genuine opportunities for rehabilitation.

Not every prisoner at an open prison will be eligible for ROTL. Before such a privilege is granted a ‘board’ of senior prison staff will interview the prisoner and further checks must be satisfied. The local police will also be made aware and each prisoner’s licence will carry specific conditions which must not be breached.

Prisoners may be allowed out to attend a local college or university, spend time re-establishing family ties or to work for local employers. Release for work purposes represents about two-thirds of all ROTLs. Prisoners recognise that ROTL is a great privilege, and know a breach of conditions will probably mean being returned to a closed prison for the rest of their sentence. As a result the failure rate of ROTLs is just 0.2 per cent.

Prisoners working via ROTL often perform difficult and unpleasant jobs which employers struggle to recruit for. While I was serving time at HMP Hollesley Bay, an open prison on the Suffolk coast, large numbers of prisoners left each day to work in local slaughterhouses, kitchens and warehouses. They worked hard, long hours, rather than wasting their sentence staring at a cell’s walls.

Each ROTL worker pays tax and NI on their income, just as anyone else would. On top of that they pay a further portion (typically 40 per cent) of their net income to the Victim Surcharge fund, compensating victims. These prisoners also have to pay for their own travel to and from work, and fund their own food when they are absent from the prison during meal times. Taxpayers and victims are better off as a result.

More importantly we know, as the Ministry of Justice points out, that having ‘a job on release helps to support people leaving prison rebuild their lives, reducing reoffending and preventing future victims of crime’. The MOJ’s analysis suggests that prisoners who have any work at all in the year after release are between 5 per cent and 10 cent less likely to reoffend.

Prisoners typically either save what income they have remaining or send it to their families. As a result, when they leave prison they are more likely to be able to afford to live and have a supportive family to rejoin. Matthew, a former prisoner I spoke to who asked for his name to be changed, told me:

‘During the last 18 months of my sentence I worked via…ROTL…the wages that I earned enabled me to pay back my victims using the 40 per cent levy prisoners have to pay out of their wages and…I was able to support my wife and daughter who financially struggled due to me being incarcerated.’

Employers too are full of praise. James Timpson, chief executive of Timpson Group, speaks highly of the scheme:

‘ROTL is a fantastic route to long term employment for prison leavers, and for us at Timpson leads to an 85 per cent success rate. We have over 100 colleagues today leaving their cells and working in our business, and they are very valued colleagues, treated the same as everyone else.’

Many prisoners also use ROTL to get meaningful qualifications at colleges or universities. This access to education can transform lives. Jerry, whose name has been changed, left school at 16. In his mid-30s he was sentenced to five years in prison. At an open prison and with two years left to serve he applied successfully for a degree at a local university. Jerry said this ‘allowed me to develop my skills, rebuild my discipline and focus after years behind a cell door, and taught me commitment. I also met my employer through the university which led me to a new career path and a positive future after prison.’

Jerry now works full-time for that employer, and is aiming to finish the final year of his degree. A man who thought his life was over is now a hard-working, taxpaying member of society.

It’s harder to measure, but I’ve seen work on ROTL transform attitudes too. At Hollesley Bay, many of my fellow prisoners had never worked in an honest job. For decades they’d lived with the knowledge that if, or when the police caught up with them all their money would be forfeit as proceeds of crime. Earning honest, taxed wages showed them another path, to money that was really theirs.

Instead of being shocked that employers like McDonald’s are helping prisoners to reform and rebuild their lives we should applaud them.

David Shipley is a film producer who served time in HMP Wandsworth for fraud

Whole Systems Approach?

I find offender management in custody to be such an odd concept if the purpose improving outcomes for release. Although billed as a "whole systems approach to resettlement", there is nothing "whole systems" about the way this endeavour was named i.e. management in custody. For me, they lost the probation "buy in" right from the start by choosing both the phrases "offender management" and "in custody".

There always was an "offender manager" or "offender supervisor" in custody so I'm just not sure what is supposed to be new about what goes on in custody - OMIC has removed, not added - taken AWAY the role of the community officer, or at least someone "out" of the prison to co-ordinate the sentence.

My experience of prisons over the years is they only see what is going on within their four walls - rightfully so. But it often took the oversight of someone external i..e myself, the community practitioner to look to other prisons and point out what the person needed existing in another prison elsewhere. While of course a consistent keyworker prison officer (rather than the old "personal officer" system, which changed depending on what wing the person was on) is a good thing...but I don't feel the service have ever told us what the benefits of taking away the community involvement/oversight is supposed to be? Maybe it is, maybe we're really not needed until the last few weeks before release - maybe this elusive research mentioned via Twister informs us that this relationship makes no difference to the person's community outcomes.

Of course, we all know that prisoners move prisons due to security concerns, overcrowding, or indeed to access interventions they need, or to be closer to family. The original offender management model was brought in precisely because prisoners were constantly moving from prison, to prison and each prison "started afresh" as if the past hadn't occurred.

OK so there's a handover? What experience have people already had of these supposed pre-release handovers and the inter-prison-transfer handovers that take place along the way?. Do these adequately enable the community PO to grasp a person's history and develop the relationship just at the moment you're about to tell them "oh, here's your licence conditions, and by the way, you're going to AP". Will the prison OM's be prepping the person for the release, these conditions and what to expect from day one, to adequately prepare them?

And what exactly is whole system about moving people to another resettlement prison shortly before their release, so that the "handover POM" doesn't actually know the person and therefore has nothing to handover? What is whole system about outsourcing "resettlement work" to private companies to do absolutely nothing about resettlement prior to release? And what is whole system about taking away the role of the prison OM in those crucial weeks prior to release?

Oh and has there been any communication that as part of the new national standards the community OM is expected see the person three times in that final resettlement phase? Has time been allocated for these increased prison visits, have videolink slots suddenly been massively increased for this evident increased demand or are people still finding it notoriously difficult to see people in custody?

I cant believe that I've heard about OMIC for years now, and still I feel I know very little about what it is, why it's happening and how this is going to affect myself let alone the people directly affected?

*****
Hang on I just don't get it - if OMIC is going live in open prisons, at what point does the community OM get allocated? Surely one of the main purposes of open prison is for the person to come out on ROTL - as was as the notoriously laborious ROTL approval process, who does that if the person isn't within the last few months of the sentence - who visits the family, builds those relationships, and sees the person while on ROTL, if there is no community OM to see? And if there is a community OM doing all these things then that's not OMIC is it, it's the status flipping quo!

******

This from the archives:-

Tuesday, 13 August 2019

Latest From Napo 193

For quite some time readers have been suggesting that Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) was another disaster in the making and this latest news from Napo would tend to confirm that view:-

Napo and POA in dispute over OMiC as Johnson announces 10,000 more prison places

Today’s big story on sentencing reform, and the return of the Tories favourite old pre-election mantra of ‘lock em up and throw away the key,’ is symptomatic of the failure by successive Governments to properly understand the need for a balanced approach to prisons and rehabilitation.

I have just returned to HQ from the interview with Sky News earlier today where I tried to introduce a different perspective, and highlight a number of Napo’s campaigning priorities. Depressingly today’s debate has been dominated by the headline of 10,000 new prison places (and at least one new prison) to be financed by another huge windfall from that Magic Money Tree.

Same old, same old

There are a few reasons why the policy shift should be subject to major scrutiny. Firstly, because it represents a brutal ‘pitchforking’ of the reformist shoots previously planted by Messrs Gauke and Stewart on the need to abolish short term prison sentences which would have made a decent start in freeing up space across the HMP estate. Although by now we should know better than to expect a few facts to get in the way of the populist soundbites resurrected by Boris and his chums as they move inexorably towards a November general election.

Secondly, and in fairness to Secretary of State Robert Buckland, who at least acknowledged the need to take a holistic view of penal and rehabilitative policy on the early bulletins, it's yet again been all about Prison being the place where society’s ‘problems’ can be sent and sorted. Anyone with even half an idea about the justice system can tell you that this is a patently absurd mind-set, both from a financial and political standpoint. It's been tried tested and failed more times than many of us can remember and has seen the Prison population rise to bursting point across several decades.

OMiC dispute

Today, and perhaps very well-timed, your National Chair Katie Lomas and I have served notice on Sonia Crozier that Napo are now in dispute over the Offender Management in Custody strategy for a number of reasons as articulated in our letter. Our serious doubts about the practicalities of OMiC were raised a long time ago and have been again in light of the Governments U-turn on Probation, but it’s been an awfully long slog trying to get someone to take our concerns seriously. Today’s announcements should at least ring some more bells in this regard.

Fortunately it's not just us who are somewhat miffed at developments, and last week we met with our colleagues from the POA who also have serious issues in common cause around grading, qualification and workloads. We agreed to exchange notes going forward, maintain contact and seek joint meetings with senior HMPPS leaders and Ministers.

We will also be raising this subject as a matter of urgency at this weeks’ meeting of the NPS JNC and we will report further to members as soon as we can.

Ian Lawrence, General Secretary

--oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier, Chief Probation Officer and Executive Director Women
HM Prison and Probation Service

12th August 2019

Dear Sonia,

Dispute re OMiC

During recent engagement with your Officials about OMiC, we have received information that causes such significant concern to our members that we have no option but to formally register a dispute. Our concerns are summarised here.

Lack of Consultation

At the last meeting on July 24th we were presented with (after around a year of asking) a Powerpoint presentation titled “OMiC Staffing Model”. The document was dated March 2019. This document includes changes to agreed workload timings and changes to work practices such as completion dates for OASys and the OASys review frequency that we have not been properly consulted about. These constitute a significant change for members as well as establishing a lower level of assessment and review than is currently in place for clients in custody.

Broken assurances on staffing levels

At the start of OMiC, we were assured that the Offender Management part of the project would not be rolled out until staffing levels are safe. It is now clear that this is not the case and many members are reporting that their division is pressing ahead despite the significant vacancy levels and unacceptably high workloads that exist.

We have been informed that, in five prisons, there are serious staffing issues that are not likely to be resolved by the “go live” date. Our understanding was that in such a situation the “go live” would not proceed, but instead we have been informed that the Case Management Support model will be used instead. This will force Probation staff to take on dangerously high caseloads of high risk clients and will see prison staff who have not had the requisite training or acquired the qualification to carry out offender management tasks with those clients. Taking aside the reality that the Case Management Support model rarely affords the workload relief it promises in the custody part of the sentence, there is little work that can be usefully given to someone else in this way. Our members who are being forced to work in this way are at real risk from such excessive workloads and we know from tragic experience that working so far beyond capacity also prevents members from delivering the standard of work required from them.

SPO workloads

We have raised our concerns for some time about the prison SPO role after it was announced that the ratio of SPO: reportee would be 1:14 FTE rather than the 1:10 FTE in the community. The SPOs working in prisons will be supervising both probation and prison staff who are on different sets of terms and conditions. We already see SPOs in the community struggling with workloads, especially where there are a number of part time staff (far more likely in a predominantly female workforce) which often means there are far more than 10 staff to supervise. In Prisons, these difficulties will be exacerbated, as the SPO is expected to drive the rehabilitation culture in the OMU while referencing multiple management and support structures for the two sets of staff. Our representations on this issue up to now have been ignored.

Change to agreement on the contracted out estate

During the meeting on the 24th July, we were also informed that, contrary to the previous assurance that high-risk clients in the contracted-out estate would have an OM with a Probation Qualification, there was a plan to use the Case Management Support model here too. This again forces members to work with dangerously high caseloads and way beyond their safe capacity thus risking their health and safety as well as making it impossible for them to deliver the standard of work expected.

Concerns about the model

You are of course aware that right from the start, Napo have questioned the OMiC model because it builds in working practices that are not supportive of desistance including inconsistency of worker through the sentence. The change of Offender Manager during the preparation for a client’s release is particularly concerning; as the period immediately prior to and just after release are especially vulnerable points in the sentence. The blueprint for the change to Probation Services discusses how problematic these “handoffs” are, and this forms part of the basis for one of the most significant U-turns in policy we have seen in Probation. It is therefore astounding that the OMiC model is being forced through with the same flaws embedded.

The announcements by the Prime Minister over the weekend of the intention to create 10,000 new Prison places, in itself means that urgent dialogue (and surely a further review) is now necessary on the whole OMiC strategy and the resourcing requirements that are going to be needed in Prisons and Probation.

In addition, the OMiC model has been altered for the Women’s Estate to remove the Keyworker role for those women described in the documentation as “high complexity women”. We have made representations about the degrading language being used and suggested that “women with complex needs” would be more appropriate. We question the decision to remove the Keyworker role which has been described as providing more consistency. Using consistency of worker as a reasoning for any decision in this model is bizarre, given the representations we have made about the model overall, but in this case it doesn’t fit at all. The Keyworker role is one of the positive aspects of OMiC, providing an additional supportive member of the “team” in the prison. This should be used to enhance, not supplant the interaction with the Offender Manager. Instead of removing the Keyworker role we believe that the Keyworker should remain, but the Offender Manager should be allocated additional time to ensure that positive working relationships can be built.

No consultation on job losses

In addition to the practice concerns we have illustrated above, it is very clear that the OMiC model is simply seeking to resolve the acute and chronic staffing issues in the NPS by giving staff unacceptably high workloads and by giving 30% of the custody caseload to Prison staff to manage. Although no NPS staff will lose their employment (because of the high vacancy rate in the NPS and our ‘no redundancy’ agreement) this nevertheless represents a net loss of jobs which has also not been the subject of prior consultation with the unions.

In view of the urgency of this issue, we are seeking its inclusion as an additional item at this weeks’ meeting of the NPS JNC. Meanwhile, Napo will be taking steps to consult with our sister trade unions and our members about how we should progress this dispute.

Yours sincerely

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary
KATIE LOMAS National Chair

---oo00oo--

Sonia Crozier reply letter 05.09.19

1st October 2019 

Dear Sonia, 

DISPUTE - OFFENDER MANAGEMENT IN CUSTODY (OMIC) 

Thank you for your reply of 5th September to our letter giving notice of dispute dated 12th August, which was the subject of a meeting at our Offices on 27th August. 

Whilst we welcomed the constructive discussion that took place between us, we nevertheless feel that certain aspects of your written response require some comment. 

Staffing Levels 

Having reflected carefully on the narrative that you have provided, Napo does not agree that the expected ratio for Prison based Probation Officers of ‘no more than 80 cases’ represents a safe workload. Here you reference the additional Case Management support that will be provided by Prison staff, but the genesis of this dispute is that Napo does not believe that prison staff (while no doubt being in possession of skillsets applicable to their core functions ) have the requisite experience in offender management and that the anticipated caseloads for Probation Officers within the custodial environment remain unsafe. We have consistently challenged the idea that the case management support model provides significant workload relief for the PO or PSO holding a case and this means that we have little confidence that such an arrangement would make managing such a high caseload safe. 

Additionally, Napo has some difficulty accepting that the three bespoke Community Hubs will be an effective work around in covering vacancies. Here we foresee large volumes of cases being managed remotely by practitioners where the likelihood of engaging directly with clients in the way that you have suggested is highly unlikely to occur. 

Unfortunately your letter is silent on the key issue of staffing in the community and we continue to pick up concerns from members that despite high vacancy rates in some areas staff are still being expected to move into the custody roles with no immediate plan to backfill them. Indeed you have admitted yourself that it is unlikely that Probation staffing levels will stabilise for at least another year leaving divisions struggling to manage such a significant organisational change. 

All of this leads us to say that we do not believe that all of this is in keeping with assurances we have been given on safe staffing levels. On that basis we seek a further and urgent review of the calculations which have given rise to the caseload forecast. 

SPO Workloads 

We generally welcome the narrative that you have provided in respect of our concerns and we look forward to engaging with your OMiC Team to explore how best we can construct the SPO Survey that you have agreed to launch. 

‘For Profit’ Prisons 

Napo has long held the view that OM supervision in these establishments is well below the standards that we would expect. Napo does not believe that the CMS model will offer suitable workload relief for Probation Officers to oversee High Risk cases for the reasons outlined above. This plan also goes against the original assurance given in response to our representations about “For Profit” prisons. 

Continuity of Offender Manager 

The Offender Management in Custody model builds in an inconsistency in client – worker relationship that we seek to avoid in other circumstances. In fact part of the rationale for the integration of offender management out of CRCs and into the NPS is to create fewer changes of worker in the system. The only conclusion that can be reached is that the OMiC model is cheaper than properly resourcing end to end offender management. While most will welcome the increases to prison staff resources and the renewed focus on rehabilitation in custody the reality is that the proposed model requires fewer reviews of the sentence plan during the custodial phase of the sentence (moving from annual to biennial or triennial dependent on the length of sentence) and only mandates monthly contact between offender manager and client for high risk cases and only quarterly contact with the client in low risk cases. While this may appear to be more than the current model for offender manager contact it is less contact than most clients experience from the combined team of offender manager based in the community and the offender supervisor based in custody. Closer examination of the model reveals that decisions have been made in terms of resourcing that assume shorter times to complete various tasks including OASys assessments which will lead to higher caseloads for staff undertaking the Offender Manager role. While the mandatory contact and review of sentence plan demand may be lower than before this will place intense pressure on staff working in custody. 

Women in Custody 

We welcome the commitment to change the descriptive language as described in the OMIC model and will work closely with your team on the issues that we have raised. 

Reassurance about no redundancies 

Whilst we acknowledge the pledge for there to be no redundancies under the OMIC transition, we feel that you have failed to acknowledge the fact that NPS vacancies are being filled by prison staff whom we feel are under qualified for the role that they are going to be asked to undertake. 

Again, and linked to our concerns above, Napo believe that we need a joint review to identify the exact staffing need under the proposed OMIC Operational model in order to give staff confidence that it is fit for purpose. 

We look forward to another opportunity to try and resolve these issues and hope that we can arrive at position which provides confidence to our members that their concerns are being taken seriously by the employer. 

Yours sincerely 

IAN LAWRENCE General Secretary

KATIE LOMAS National Chair

--oo00oo--

There is reference to the matter dated 26/06/2020:-

OMiC update

Our regular meetings with members of the OMiC Board have resumed now that we are working towards recovery and some of the staff who were seconded out of the OMiC project will be returning to it. A final draft of the OMiC recovery EDM will be shared shortly for our final opportunity to consult on it but this week’s meeting was a useful opportunity to raise some of the issues that have really been highlighted by the Covid-19 crisis.

SPO line management arrangements

While the move to formal line management of prison SPOs by the Governor has not yet happened informal management arrangements most certainly are in place and there have been examples of tensions between the NPS approach to exceptional delivery and the prison service approach placing prison SPOs in an almost impossible situation. We have supported manager members to address these issues and in some cases escalated them to ensure that SPOs have the right level of support from their division in implementing the EDM and the NPS guidance on social distancing, hygiene and PPE that underpins the protection of health and safety during the crisis. We have insisted that these issues be taken into consideration as we resume discussions about the line management of the prison SPOs. For now issues should be raised locally via the divisional implementation board and if necessary referred to Katie Lomas.

The approach to recovery

Once the EDM is published each prison will develop a regime recovery management plan (RRMP) and local reps, both Napo and POA must be involved in consultation on this along with the associated Health and Safety risk assessments for the OMU and related activities. As reported earlier in the week Napo and the POA have agreed to work collaboratively on this and where there is no Napo H&S rep in the prison local branch reps will be able to liaise with the POA H&S rep and members working in the establishment.

--oo00oo--

And the last reference appears to be here:-

Napo bulletin 7 August 2020

Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) and Prison 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.

Questions Requiring Answers

The news on Saturday that the MoJ have finally bowed to common sense and united argument regarding urgent action in dealing with the threat from coronavirus within the prison estate raises more questions than answers. As always, Rob Allen was quick off the mark with this blog post:- 

Scrutiny of Justice in a Time of Crisis

Good news that the government plans to reduce pressure on prisons by releasing 4,000 low risk prisoners up to two months early. Credit’s due to the excellent work of the Howard League and Prison Reform Trust among others in pressing the Ministry of Justice to do the right thing. And on the government side, one has to admire the tactic of wheeling out Michael ‘Prison Works’ Howard to provide political cover for an administration that pre-Covid 19 made so much of the need for prisoners to serve longer spells inside before release.

But is today’s announcement enough? The uncrowded capacity of the system was 75,380 at the end of February and last Friday the population was 82,589. So even if numbers fall by 4,000, many prisons may still struggle to avoid enforced cell sharing.

There are other important questions to be clarified. Do all the released prisoners really need to wear electronic tags? Is there capacity to achieve that? What are the strict conditions prisoners will have to adhere to? What will be the process for assessing eligibility? And most important when will it start?

The government’s press release says that the releases will be phased over time but can start from next week. It also says that the “Statutory Instruments to allow these releases to take place will be laid on Monday.”

But Parliament is in recess so it’s not clear to me at any rate what procedure will be used to sign them into law. Surely some scrutiny of the government’s proposals is required before it’s done.

As it happens, on Tuesday the Committee will hear from Justice Secretary Robert Buckland about COVID19 and the justice system but “due to restrictions on Parliamentary capacity, partly caused by the virus, the meeting will be held online and in private. A summary note will be published shortly after.”

This doesn’t seem good enough. On the same day the Transport Committee will be questioning Secretary of State for Transport on the impact of Coronavirus on UK transport. The session will take place virtually and will be broadcast live. There seems no good reason why the Justice Committee meeting should not be scheduled at a time when it can be broadcast too. There is considerable public interest not only in the release but the search for publicly owned sites which can be used to house temporary prison accommodation.

It may seem churlish to complain about the lack of public involvement when politicians, officials and public servants in all departments are facing such extraordinary pressures. But as Penelope Gibbs has shown in respect of courts, without scrutiny, things can go wrong despite the best of intentions – and sometimes even because of them. Allowing independent access to justice institutions should remain an important priority.

Chief Prison Inspector Peter Clarke was probably right to suspend his team’s inspection programme but promised to “seek alternative ways of fulfilling our obligation to monitor, understand and report on the treatment and conditions in prisons and places of detention”. I’d like to see a set of expectations drawn up on how prisons should be dealing with the crisis and some kind of independent monitoring of how they are doing particularly in respect of medical care. For example, the Prison Rules require a medical practitioner “to report to the governor on the case of any prisoner whose health is likely to be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or any conditions of imprisonment. The governor shall send the report to the Secretary of State without delay, together with his own recommendations”. How is this being interpreted?

Some input is needed too from the Sentencing Council to ensure a more sparing use of prison is made by judges and magistrates during the crisis. The experience of imprisonment is undoubtedly harsher at the moment with no work or education and more time in cell. Should this not be reflected by courts reducing sentence lengths and wherever possible suspending prison sentences? More radically still, the MoJ should enable custodial sentences to be deferred where a defendant has been on bail. The advantage of releasing low risk prisoners from the back door of prison will be eroded if low risk offenders continue to enter through the front door of sentencing.

Specifically, the Council should say something about the sentencing of offences related to the Corona Virus Act 2020 or to the emergency more generally. Justice Committee Chair Bob Neill said last week that he thought Justice Secretary Robert Buckland would want the courts to deal with these “swiftly and condignly”. But that’s less a matter for Neill and the Justice Secretary than it is for the Council who should urgently give it some more measured consideration.

Rob Allen

Command and Control 2

I notice the following was published by Clinks yesterday:-

HMPPS restrictions on attendance at events 

Following the tragic incidents at Fishmongers Hall in November 2019, HMP Whitemoor in January 2020 and in Streatham in February 2020, Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) put in place a number of restrictions on people in the criminal justice system and on their staff’s attendance at events.

The recent incidents, in particular the one that took place at Fishmonger’s Hall, affected many individuals and organisations in our sector. The loss of life was also a loss of two individuals’ passion and belief in the potential in everyone and in the power of working together to help people to change. But this passion and belief lives on within our sector and we are therefore concerned that any response to these events from either the criminal justice system or our own sector, must be proportionate and not undermine access to services that support desistance and enable people to improve their lives. We are talking to HMPPS to help minimise the impact of these restrictions while also keeping people safe.

The restrictions imposed by HMPPS

1. Temporary suspension of Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) for the purpose of attending public events celebrating offender achievements, and a corresponding suspension of permitting offenders on licence from attending such events.

2. Any such events hosted by HMPPS in a public setting, with planned attendance by prisoners on ROTL or offenders on licence, should not go ahead until further notice.

3. In cases where such an event in a public setting is hosted by a partner organisation, the decision about whether to cancel is for that organisation. However, where events do take place, HMPPS staff should not attend.

4. Internal HMPPS events within prison establishments may go ahead, subject to local risk assessment.

It is possible for Prison Group Directors or Probation Divisional Directors to request permission for events/event attendances to go ahead, by exception, by making a request of their Executive Director, who will liaise with the Joint Extremism Unit ahead of a recommendation going to the relevant Director-General.

Clinks understands that these restrictions are based upon intelligence and assessments by the Security, Order and Counter Terrorism Directorate and the Joint Extremism Unit. HMPPS’ purpose is to reduce the risk of further incidents as far as possible and to keep people safe. We are, however, concerned to ensure that they do not limit access to rehabilitative opportunities across a wide range of people within the criminal justice system or have implications which present a challenge to the sector’s commitment to involve experts by experience in the design and delivery of services. In particular, we are concerned that under these restrictions it is unclear what constitutes “public events celebrating offender achievements” and that this may impact a wide range of criminal justice voluntary sector activities, even if not the intention. We know from discussions with members and partners that there is a lack of knowledge of the restrictions and what may be required of organisations. Furthermore, there is confusion as to how these restrictions may be interpreted, reports of inconsistencies in interpretation and concern as to the longer-term impact if they remain in place for much longer.

We have raised these concerns with HMPPS and are in ongoing discussions with them to pass on feedback from our sector, help them to understand the impact of the restrictions and limit that impact wherever possible. We understand the restrictions will be reviewed in March and we will keep the sector updated with regards to this. Both I and Richard Nicholls, Clinks’ Head of Operations and a member of the Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group (RR3), are meeting with the Director General in the next weeks to discuss concerns and seek further clarity.

HMPPS has assured us that they are absolutely committed to supporting rehabilitative activity in our sector and working with organisations facing barriers to their work in this period when restrictions remain in place. Colleagues at HMPPS understand that the restrictions articulated above can’t account for every eventuality so they are happy to receive queries and referrals about events from the sector. If you have questions or concerns about how these restrictions might affect your activities please contact directorgeneralprisons@justice.gov.uk or directorgeneralprobation@justice.gov.uk.

If you have concerns or questions you can also get in touch with us. Richard.nicholls@clinks.org is leading on issues around working safely in the sector and is the best first point of contact.

Anne Fox 

CEO Clinks

The MoJ Responds 3

Support for Offenders on Probation 

We recommend that the UK Government should introduce a presumption against short custodial sentences. The Government should carry out an assessment of the potential impacts that such a policy might have, including on the prison population, both the male and female estate, and the allocation of cases to different courts (Paragraph 140). 

We welcome the Committee’s support for sentencing reform and the recommendation to restrict the use of short custodial sentences. There is a strong case to abolish sentences of six months or less, with some exceptions. We are currently exploring options, including looking at the approach taken in Scotland and whether we can go further than this. This involves an assessment of potential impacts. 

If short custodial sentences continue to be used, within 12 months the Government should consider repealing Section 2 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014. Before repealing the Section 2 provisions the Ministry should assess what policy or legislative measures should replace those provisions. (Paragraph 145) 

The Government is of the view that Post-Sentence Supervision under Section 2 of the Offender Rehabilitation Act should remain in place. This has led to the supervision of 40,000 additional offenders being released from short custodial sentences, and is a positive change for public safety. However, we are continuing to consider ways of improving post-sentence supervision, in order to clarify expectations for its delivery and ensure a focus on rehabilitation. We will also need to consider how proposals to reduce the use of short custodial sentences would impact on post-release supervision. We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should review the purpose of Through the Gate and the support that it provides offenders. 

As part of this review the Ministry should consider introducing a prisoner discharge pack, based on need, and minimum expectations on resettlement services offered and how offenders’ knowledge of accessing Government services through digital portals can be improved. Real consideration should be given to whether it is appropriate to release prisoners with few family ties, from custody on a Friday, when access to Government services can be difficult. (Paragraph 152). 

As part of our future arrangements set out above we are reviewing the purpose and focus of resettlement activity and looking at enhancing the role and pre-release planning time of the community responsible officer as well as providing greater clarity on service delivery in prison and from the community. We recognise that effective probation is dependent on offenders’ access to wider services, such as housing, universal credit and substance misuse treatment. We are working with other government departments on these issues, including through the cross-Whitehall Reducing Reoffending Board to facilitate this.

With regard to release on a Friday, automatic release points for custodial sentences are set in legislation. Where the release date falls on a weekend or Bank Holiday, the Criminal Justice Act 1961 requires the release date to be brought forward to the first preceding working day, i.e. Friday. Delaying when the prisoner is released to the next working day, i.e. Monday, would mean holding the person unlawfully. To amend the release arrangements, we would need to change primary legislation and we have no evidence to suggest that those released on Fridays are more likely to reoffend than those released on any other working day. 

We are currently considering responses to a recent consultation on the policy which highlighted the potential for Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) to be used on a case by case basis to allow offenders with Friday release dates to access services and support before the weekend, where this has been identified as key by their community offender manager. 

We have, however, recognised the need for immediate action to improve Through the Gate services to prisoners. Contract changes agreed with CRCs in 2018 included an enhanced Through the Gate service to increase the current level of service from April 2019, and this includes minimum expectations for resettlement services for prisoners. This is supported by £22m per annum of additional investment (for the remaining lifetime of the existing CRC contracts), and applies to all prisoners being released from resettlement prisons. Almost 500 new staff have now been employed in the 86 resettlement prisons to provide this enhanced service. Provision of the new specification will also be available to those being discharged from non-resettlement prisons through NPS commissioning via the CRC Rate Cards which have been updated to include the enhanced TTG service and improvements have been made to the pay mechanism for this. We recommend that offenders should begin receiving pre-release resettlement activity no later than 12 weeks prior to release. 

When an offender requires pre-release support before the 12-week pre-release point that should be provided and CRCs should be appropriately remunerated. (Paragraph 156) 

We recognise that resettlement needs to be fully integrated into the offender management system, with prisons and probation working together to help offenders transition successfully to life in the community. As we develop our future approach to resettlement, we are looking to extend pre-release support beyond 12 weeks for offenders being released from prison. 

The Ministry of Justice should set out its minimum expectations to providers on the balance between remote and face-to-face supervision, and on the location of meetings between an offender and their Probation Officer (Paragraph 161) 

We accept this recommendation. We recognise the concerns that remote supervision should not be used as the only means by which an offender is supervised, and that the physical environment in which offenders are seen must be conducive to fostering open and honest engagement and maintaining confidentiality. 

We have already taken steps to change existing CRC contracts to introduce a minimum requirement for providers to offer monthly face-to-face contact with the responsible officer for the first 12 months of an offender’s order or licence. This will ensure that offenders are more closely supervised and provide a stronger basis to identify and enforce any breach of sentence. 

In future arrangements, we intend to specify through national standards the minimum frequency and form of offender contact. This will include a requirement for a minimum of monthly face to face contact for all offenders, with those posing a higher risk requiring a greater level of contact. Face to face contact will be required to take place where there is an appropriate level of privacy. Telephone contact will be permitted to support, but not replace, face to face contact. 

The Ministry of Justice should introduce national guidance on best practice relating to changes to an individual’s Probation Officer and case manager (Paragraph 164) 

We agree that to enable positive relationships to develop, wherever possible the same responsible officer should supervise an offender throughout their sentence. Evidence identifies the relationship between the responsible officer and the offender as key to desistence. As set out in the probation consultation response, we believe that bringing together offender management under one organisation will promote continuity of the responsible officer and enable effective monitoring of changes of responsible officer through the collection of management information. 

The National Standards for the Management of Offenders will be revised for future delivery of probation services and will be supported by practice guidance to drive up quality of delivery. This will include the importance of continuity and effective management of case transfer. 

When the Ministry of Justice responds to our Report it should have undertaken a review of output 3 of service element 6 of its guidance on unpaid work orders. It should set out in response to this Report any changes it will implement. (Paragraph 169) 

We are seeking to reduce stand downs on Unpaid Work through a number of measures. This includes changing the performance metric to a completion date of 12 months, to drive prompt delivery of unpaid work hours and holding providers to account through management information regarding rate of stand downs. We intend to specify in future contracts an appropriate number of placements to avoid the need to stand down offenders. 

Where it is necessary to stand down offenders, we have reviewed output 3 service element 6 and will change the specification to credit hours which reflect the individual circumstances of the offender, taking into account travel time and employment impact, with an hour being the minimum credit. 

We recommend that, where possible, unpaid work should contribute to the local community and be linked to education and training (Paragraph 172). 

Unpaid Work provides the opportunity to engage offenders in learning in a practical setting and 20% of the hours can be used to undertake employment related training, which is currently being underutilised. 

We are taking action to improve current delivery of unpaid work and will shortly issue guidance to providers to promote the appropriate use of the 20% education and training allowance which has been incorporated into revised Community Payback Practice Guidance. 

Future contracts will ensure that providers of Unpaid Work source sufficient group and individual placements to allow offenders to complete their requirement within their local community, where appropriate. The contract will require active engagement with local stakeholders and liaison with communities to source local placements. Providers will be required to source placements which can develop personal and practical employment related skills for service users with education, training and employment related needs. 

It is intended that in future contracts all offenders will be assessed for employment, education and training needs and the 20% allowance will be maximised to address these needs. The allowance for education and training activity has been extended to employed services users with an identified employment need and includes preparatory and motivational work. There will be additional flexibility at the start of Intensive Unpaid Work orders, based on need, so that an offender can build up to the minimum of 28 hours per week. 

We recommend that the Government should amend the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, to make it explicit that an individual who is homeless because of having served a custodial sentence should be deemed vulnerable for the purposes of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. We further recommend that the UK Government should work with the Welsh Government to ensure that their homelessness legislation takes due account of the risks of reoffending. (Paragraph 182) 

Homelessness legislation already provides that a person who is vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence has priority need for accommodation, and the statutory Homelessness Code of Guidance reflects the legislation as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) 2018. The HRA significantly amended homelessness legislation to strengthen duties to all eligible applicants, irrespective of priority need or intentional homelessness, and in this context we have no plans to amend the priority need categories at this time. 

The guidance issued in 2018 now includes a dedicated chapter focussing on supporting those with a history of offending into suitable accommodation. Contained within that new chapter is: ‘A person who is vulnerable as a result of having served a custodial sentence, been committed for contempt of court or remanded in custody, has a priority need for accommodation’. As part of the planned review of the HRA, the effectiveness of the guidance in supporting those with priority, including those with a history of offending, will be assessed. 

Local authorities now have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or relieve homelessness, including to people with a history of offending. From 1 October 2018, prison and probation services have a duty to refer any user of their service who they consider to be homeless or threatened with homelessness within 56 days to a local authority of the person’s choice. The duty to refer will encourage local housing authorities and other public authorities to build stronger partnerships focussed on early help and intervention and to build more integrated pathways and services. The duty will help ensure that people who face the threat of homelessness are identified earlier and provided with help to prevent them from becoming homeless. 

As part of the implementation of the Government’s Rough Sleeping Strategy, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to pilot a scheme to support individuals released from three prisons, who are at risk of becoming homeless or sleeping rough. The contracts for these three pilots will be awarded at the end of April and will operate over a three year period. The pilots will test a new partnership approach with prisons, Probation Providers and Local Authorities working together, to plan, secure and sustain accommodation for offenders on their release. 

The Government has committed to review the implementation of the HRA within two years which will provide a forum to consider a range of issues such as these.

Although the Housing (Wales) Act removed the priority status of prison leavers in Wales, it also introduced an Accommodation Pathway for people leaving the custodial estate to respond to concerns that this change might cause. HMPPS was, and continues to be, fully involved in the development of the pathway to ensure it meets the needs of offenders leaving custody and provides for a successful transfer to the community. 

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should work with the Department for Work and Pensions to enable offenders serving custodial sentences to apply for Universal Credit (UC) prior to their release from custody so that they receive UC on the day of release. As an interim measure, and until offenders can receive UC upon release, the Government should set up a transitional credit fund for those offenders who have insufficient funds to provide for the basics, such as travel, a roof over their heads and food, in recognition that £46 is wholly inadequate to cover these. (Paragraph 187). 

We agree that offenders should have prompt access to the benefits to which they are entitled on the day of release. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to improve the process to access Universal Credit, help offenders pre-populate their claim in custody and to ensure that they have the relevant identification documents. Offenders are able to access a DWP Work Coach prior to release who can make an appointment as early as the day of release to complete their claim, and can receive an advance of a full month’s benefit, including the housing element where appropriate, within hours. 

The purpose of the Discharge Grant is not to provide for all the prisoner’s needs after release. It is intended solely to assist them in the first few days after release and before they might reasonably be able to get a job or an appointment at a jobcentre and/or begin to access state benefits. We have recently concluded our review of the current use of the Discharge Grant and Discretionary Accommodation Payment. We are currently analysing our findings. 

In addition, existing policy provides for an amount of up to £50 (in addition to the discharge grant) to be provided directly to an accommodation provider to enable an offender to secure accommodation, at the Governor’s discretion. Every discharged offender, regardless of whether they receive a discharge grant, is also issued with a travel warrant, or payment of fares where a warrant is inappropriate, to their destination. Offenders are also discharged with any prison earnings/private cash. 

The Government should consider how offenders who are being released to an unknown or non-fixed address can be supported in having access to a bank account, so that an absence of such an account does not prohibit the offenders from getting a job, claiming benefits or securing a place to live. (Paragraph 190) 

Action is already underway to improve offenders’ access to bank accounts on release from custody. The Offender Banking Programme enables prisons which release significant numbers of offenders to develop a relationship with a commercial bank. This allows offenders to open a basic bank account in the last six months of their sentence. In 2017, 6,500 accounts were opened under this scheme – a record number. In April this year a new CRC specification has come into force to make clear the expectation that the CRC is responsible for arranging for prisoners to get a Bank Account. 

HMPPS also continues to work with UK Finance to look at other potential forms of identification which can be used by offenders who are released without accounts and we are working with HMT to encourage the challenger banks to join the programme to provide more capacity including in the Youth Estate.

The Long-Term Delivery of Probation Services 

We recommend that the Ministry of Justice should initiate a review into the long-term future and sustainability of delivering probation services under the models introduced by the TR reforms, including how performance under the TR system might compare to an alternative system for delivering probation. The Government should publish its review, in full, by 1 February 2019. Given the issues which have arisen due to the speedy implementation of the TR reforms and lack of piloting, any new model must be thoroughly planned and tested. (Paragraph 200) 

We have taken the time to think about what worked well, as well as what didn’t, under the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms. Further, the public consultation on the future of probation generated feedback on every aspect of the current system. We have reflected carefully on this feedback to ensure that future arrangements benefit from the expertise and experience of providers, service users, voluntary organisations, sentencers, probation staff and other partners. 

We want to build on the positive changes introduced by Transforming Rehabilitation, while accepting there have been challenges resulting from the complexities of contractualising offender management and splitting functions between the NPS and CRCs. In our future approach, we intend that the NPS will have responsibility for all offender management services - for low, medium and high-risk offenders. Private and not-for-profit organisations have demonstrated their strength in delivering interventions and driving innovation. We will retain and build on this success by sourcing key services, such as Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes, and other resettlement and rehabilitative interventions from the private and not-for-profit markets. We intend to do this through competitions for suppliers for Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes, and through creation of a dynamic framework for resettlement and rehabilitative interventions. 

We will now run a period of market and stakeholder engagement to finalise our proposals, including on how services will be packaged within competitions, and to set out further detail on the service design for future services. We will then seek to launch the competition processes later in the year for Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes and the dynamic framework. 

We aim to complete the reintegration of offender management under the NPS in Wales before the end of 2019, and in England around spring 2021. We will seek to apply any lessons learnt from transition in Wales, where probation services are already co-terminous, when transitioning services in England.

(Concluded)

The rehabilitation system has suffered hugely as a result of the failed reforms

Commenting on the Government’s full response to its report on Transforming Rehabilitation, Chair of the Justice Committee, Bob Neill MP, said:

“The MoJ has finally responded to the recommendations in our Transforming Rehabilitation report, eleven months after it was published. We welcome the MoJ’s announcement that all offenders will be brought under the supervision of the National Probation Service. But it has been a very long time coming, and the system has suffered hugely as a result of the failed reforms. Indeed, some people have told us that they welcomed the new proposals as ‘probation could hardly get worse’. We will question Robert Buckland, the responsible Minister, next week on what went wrong and details of the proposed new probation system.”

(We will cover what Mr Buckland had to say as soon as the transcript is published. MoJ staff including Jim Barton get a grilling tomorrow.)  

Don't Mention Probation!

Whilst we've been necessarily focused on the Napo General Secretary election, David Gauke is doing his best to continue the official MoJ line and pretend there's no problem with TR and probation by the simple expedient of never mentioning it. Official policy would appear to be that it's all far too difficult to sort out and I'm told some poor mandarin has been given the task of just trying to keep the show on the road until the CRC contracts end. 

It's ok to talk about prisons though and here he is announcing something that had already been announced - a classic distraction ploy, but again it's just about buying a bit of time until those pesky satellite tagging contracts kick-in next year when thousands of prisoners can be released. Never mind that the CRCs won't be able to cope supervising them on licence - it'll be ok, perhaps he has a hunch, a gut feeling:- 

From the wings to the workplace: the route to reducing reoffending

Secretary of State for Justice's speech at the Education and Employment Strategy Launch at HMP Isis.

It’s a pleasure to be at HMP Isis today to see some of the excellent work being done to help prisoners get a job when they are released. The impressive workshops being run here are helping prisoners to learn a trade and gain the practical skills and confidence they need to succeed in that trade beyond these prison walls.

The power of work
Why is that important? Well, I believe in the power of work to change people’s lives. As Work and Pensions Secretary, I saw how making work always pay supports people to take the right path in life and create a better future for themselves and their family.

It’s not just the financial security of having a pay packet, although of course that is important. It’s everything else that comes with being in work: purpose, structure, networks, having a stake in something. Nearly 400,000 more people have moved into work since this time last year; almost 3.3 million more people since 2010.

This sustained increase in employment and the strong jobs market that has supported it are great success stories. Indeed, the employment rate in the UK has been increasing over the last few years. At over 75% - it is now the highest it has been since records began in 1971. Yet, there is one group in society - former prisoners - where only 17% are in PAYE employment a year after they are released.

I want those ex-offenders who are committed to change to share in this country’s remarkable jobs story. Prisoners who come out of prison and do not get a job are a burden on our welfare state and on hard-working taxpayers. Without the focus of a job, they then often fall back into crime. That reoffending costs the UK economy £15 billion a year.

Ensuring ex-offenders come out of prison, not onto benefits but into work, reduces the financial burden on taxpayers and the welfare state. It reduces reoffending and, therefore, the number of victims of crime.

Prison as a turning-point
In my first prisons speech as Secretary of State in March, I set out what I saw as the purpose of prison: to protect the public, to punish by depriving liberty and to rehabilitate. I am clear that offenders are sent to prison as punishment, but they should leave with prison having been a turning-point in their lives. Delivering on that third purpose - rehabilitation - is at the heart of the education and employment strategy I am launching today.

Although prison cannot help those who are not willing to help themselves, for those offenders who see prison as a crossroads in their lives, as a chance to change, I want prison to provide them with the impetus and incentives to set them on the path to a better life. The foundation for creating that better life is work. This strategy will unlock opportunity and put prisoners on a path to employment. Because the evidence is clear: if a prisoner gets a job after coming out of prison, they are less likely to commit more crime.

As a window on the world of work opens for a prisoner, we often see the door to their criminal past close behind them. I want to make breaking through into that world a more realistic prospect for prisoners.

Education
The first step is education - as Dame Sally Coates’ 2016 report made clear. Over half of offenders assessed on arrival into prison have the English and maths skills of an 11-year-old. Now, we have made good progress over the last few years in improving the quality of education in prisons:

70% of the education provided by the Offender Learning and Skills Service is now rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding, That’s up from 51% in 2015. But we must go further. We need to ensure that offenders not only leave prison with the basic skills they need to enter the workplace, but with the skills that employers are looking for.

Frankly, there are too many low-level qualifications being delivered that reap little or no reward for prisoners and are of little relevance for employers. Education in prisons needs to be much more closely tailored to the skills that employers in the local area need.

That’s why our Prisoner Apprenticeship Pathway is helping link training with employment opportunities by giving a 12-month apprenticeship on release - that’s a guaranteed job and a guaranteed income. And governors know their prisoners and local areas best. I’ve said before that governors should govern. That’s why from April next year, they will be given full control of over how education is delivered in their prisons, able to tailor it to meet the needs of local employers and the local labour market.

From jobs on the wings to jobs in the workplace
Alongside education, it is also important to get experience of work. At any one time, thousands of prisoners are working in prison. A third of prisoners have a job of some kind. That could be a job working for one of the 300 businesses that have set up shop in prison, or it could be a job that directly helps with the running of a prison.

Whether working in a call centre, cleaning the wings, cooking in the kitchens or cutting hair in the prison barbers….prison work gives prisoners something purposeful to do and helps prisons run effectively. Prisoners can pick up some useful skills along the way.

However, that work has not been geared up in a way that properly prepares prisoners for employment or provides a clear route from a job on the wings to a job in the workplace. This strategy will build on the success we have had in getting prisoners doing jobs in prison and translate that into supporting prisoners into jobs when they come out of prison.

The Clink Partnership
We will be putting rehabilitation into the prison work routine by incorporating more on-the-job training and vocational qualifications into traditional prison jobs. In three prisons - HMP Bristol, Styal and Risley - we will work with The Clink charity to give make working in a prison kitchen more focussed on training, work experience, placements out of prison and ultimately employment and mentoring on release. I hope this is a model that can be adopted more widely.

Workplace ROTL
A key aspect of The Clink model is getting prisoners experience of work outside prison. That real-world experience from is vital. The evidence shows that it can reduce the risk of reoffending. So, for prisoners who have earned it, and who have been properly risk-assessed, we will get more prisoners out of their cells and into real workplaces.

We intend to do this by expanding and increasing the use of release of prisoners on temporary licence for work - or ‘workplace ROTL’. This will give more prisoners the chance to prove themselves to an employer, to build relationships and their CV, and to get that real-world experience before they leave prison.

Prisoners who go to work under ROTL are treated just like any other employee: they earn the same wages and have similar deductions made for tax and national insurance, as well as making contributions from their pay packet to victims’ funds.

So this is a foot through the door to work and to many of the benefits of being a real employee and it is an important step towards re-joining society and committing to the obligations that are required in doing that. Workplace ROTL is also a powerful incentive to promote good behaviour in prison. If you do not cause trouble, if you take the right path and play by the rules, that behaviour will be recognised and you will be rewarded with a more liberal prison regime.

In that sense, expanding the use of positive incentives like workplace ROTL, has an important role to play in reducing the levels of violence and disorder in prisons, alongside the other measures we are taking.

Personal prisoner stories
As part of the launch of this strategy today, you will see and hear stories of prisoners who have successfully taken that path, whose lives have been transformed from the opportunity workplace ROTL provides - and as a result of their own drive and determination. Let me give you just three brief personal stories.

Yasmin used workplace ROTL to start work at an engineering firm in the West Midlands. Since then, she has successfully applied for an apprenticeship and started full time work. She is now hoping to study for a degree.

Mikey got three months of work experience under his belt before being released from prison. He now works for Balfour Beatty. His advice to others if they are given the same opportunity he had is: “grab it with both hands”.

And Luke, whose story features in one of our campaign videos, went to a jobs fair in HMP Brixton. There he met a lady who signposted him to construction company Keltbray, who took him on. He says that if you have no prospects and nothing to lose, it’s very easy to fall back into what you know.

Luke says it’s a good feeling being self-sufficient. He doesn’t have to claim benefits. He can pay his rent. He is grateful to Keltbray for giving him a chance and now wouldn’t even consider doing anything that could put his new life at risk.

Employers
These stories show what is possible. But the fact is, half of employers wouldn’t even consider hiring an ex-offender. Beyond the prison walls, we need to change the mind-set of many employers. We also recognise the argument in favour of financial incentives and will balance this against wider government objectives. We will consider how to take forward a national insurance contributions holiday alongside wider work on employer obligations and incentives.

However, the basic incentive for employers should be that prisons provide a pool of potential recruits just like Yasmin, Mikey and Luke - hard-working and loyal. Some employers see that, including many of the employers here today. But I want more employers to look past an offender’s conviction to their future potential.

How do we do that? Well, we do it by working more closely with employers so they open their eyes to the benefits of hiring ex-offenders. Our New Futures Network will do just that. It will create stronger links between prisons and employers, championing prisoners and acting as a broker between prisoners and employers.

But this is not just about creating paths from institutions to employment, but about creating cultural change from within organisations themselves. I want employees, from the shop floor to the boardroom, to call out and challenge their employers if they turn a blind eye to attracting and representing ex-offenders in their workplace.

Fostering that cultural change will send a message that says: we believe in what you can contribute now and in the future, not what you have done in the past. And let me tell you why I believe now is the moment we can seize the opportunity to do that.

I think the public mood has changed somewhat in recognising that when an offender comes out of prison we, as a society, don’t want them to return to crime and reoffend. The public expects them to get a job and become law-abiding citizens. It makes good sense for society. It also makes good sense for business. In some ways, now more than ever.

Labour markets
As I mentioned at the start of my speech, we currently have a thriving jobs market. We know that demand for workers in some sectors is very high. Leaving the European Union is also likely to have an impact on the workforce in sectors such as catering, construction and agriculture. I see an opportunity here for both prisoners and employers, particularly those operating in these sectors.

By expanding the use of ROTL for work, more prisoners will not only be able to get a foot through the door to sectors like these, but employers will be better able to fill short-term skills gaps whilst also developing potential permanent employees for the longer term. That in my eyes is a ‘win-win’. Ultimately though, a lot of this is down to an employer’s mind-set and their recruitment policies. I want an employer’s head, as well as their heart, to be in the right place.

As a government, we are doing our part. We have already ‘banned the box’. That means we no longer ask about criminal convictions upfront in the recruitment process, which can put off ex-offenders from applying in the first place and lead to preconceptions on the part of the person recruiting.

We are also working with prisons to place ex-offenders into fixed-term jobs in the Civil Service. That way, an ex-offender can build up confidence and experience and have a good chance of being successful when they apply for a permanent role.

Conclusion
For those prisoners who are prepared to change, this education and employment strategy will help to break down both the barriers and the prejudices prisoners have faced. I say to prisoners: if you treat prison as a pivotal turning-point in your life, if you commit to change and to bettering yourself, if you are prepared to step up when you step out of prison, this strategy will work for you and empower you to prepare for, and move into, work.

I want prisons to be places of hope and aspiration that can propel prisoners into employment when they are released. In doing so, they will be able to start a new chapter in their lives, contribute to society and join their place in this country’s extraordinary jobs story.
Thank you.

--oo00oo--

This from yesterday's Guardian:-

Short prison sentences do not work, says justice secretary

David Gauke says he wants prison population to come down, with alternatives to short spells in jail for least serious offenders

Short prison sentences of less than 12 months do not rehabilitate prisoners and should be a last resort, the justice secretary has said, adding that the UK is now holding too many people in jail. David Gauke, who is overseeing an overcrowded prison service rife with violence and drug use, said that he would like to see the prison population come down, with alternatives to short spells in jail for the least serious offenders.

Gauke told the Times he wanted to start a wider debate about “what punishment means”, noting that prisoners held for less than a year have a recidivism rate of about 66%, higher than the reoffending rate of those handed non-custodial sentences.

“Twenty-five years ago the [prison] population was 44,000. Today it’s 84,000,” he said. “I would like it to fall.” He said efforts to cut the number of people incarcerated would depend on “how successfully we can build confidence in non-custodial sentences and how effective we can be in reducing reoffending”.

Gauke said the rise had been driven by longer and tougher sentences for serious crimes. But he acknowledged concerns about the role of shorter terms, saying: “There is an issue about public protection, but I think we need to look at the efficacy of short sentences.”

For some groups, there should also be a move towards alternatives to imprisonment. Female offenders – who are often victims of domestic abuse – have particularly complex needs, he said, while prison could be “absolutely the worst place” for people with mental health problems.

Gauke’s suggestions come days after he suggested that prisoners could fill gaps in the workforce caused by the UK leaving the European Union.