Some Thoughts

Many thanks for the get well messages. It's been a long haul, but I'm now much improved from the very nasty viral arthritic attack and ready to resume something like normal service. So, lets start with this that came in over night:- 

I was a court probation officer for most of the 80s and 90s, when offenders were asked to consent to being placed on probation. Interestingly, some opted to be sent to prison for a year rather than spend two years on probation. They knew that once they had done their time, they were then free to get on with their lives. That is not the case now with post sentence supervision. This is an albatross around the neck of many practitioners and generates a lot of unwelcome admin work. What lunatic thought that was a good idea? It really does set people up for failure and needs to be dropped. Huge drain on resources with little benefit. 

Also, I was thinking the other day about volunteers. Probation in many areas used volunteers to support clients with resettlement. I know this awful government wants to be seen as tough on those who commit crime (unless they are members of their cabinet or give them cash for their election campaign) but why not involve the community by establishing a local volunteer probation service that would do much of the support work that the newly qualified wet behind the ears probation officers are too busy to do. 

Also, lower the bar a little for Unpaid Work Supervisors. There are many people who are released from prison who could do that role, or indeed drug and alcohol counselling roles or employment, benefits advice or and housing advisor roles. Surely the money would be best spent there rather than on more layers of management. The probation service could be rebuilt as a local service from the grassroots. Of course the naysayers will say it's all gone to hell in a handcart, but that is because we let it happen and so if we pitch in and do our bit we can turn things around.

Latest From Napo 234

This from yesterday's mailout to members:-

BBC Radio 4 lays bare the state of the Probation Service

This week saw the launch of a major feature by the investigative journalist Danny Shaw. This covered the tragic events of a Serious Further Offence in Killamarsh, Derbyshire, in September 2021 and the current state of the Probation Service (England and Wales) following its reunification into public control in June 2021.

Various interviews are featured in the 31 minute Podcast entitled: ‘Probation in Peril’ . These include comments by H.M. Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell, Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden Edwards, and Napo General Secretary Ian Lawrence along with some harrowing contributions from the families of the victims and a number of Probation Practitioners, whose testimonies were anonymised. We would want to express appreciation to those Napo members who agreed to take part in the programme.

Napo Survey yields startling results

Some months ago, Napo were contacted by Danny Shaw to explore whether we would be willing to launch a survey of our members working in the Probation Service to ascertain your views about the levels of staffing, the size of caseloads and whether it is felt that Probation provides a good service. As can be heard in the programme, over 900 members responded and the results make for stark listening. Some two thirds of staff surveyed said that their workplace was desperately short of staff and that 50% of respondents felt that Probation was not providing a good enough service. Napo will be publishing the full results of the survey in due course.

Chief Probation Officer agrees that TR ‘failed.’

A notable contribution also came from Kim Thornden-Edwards who, in response to a question about the Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) programme implemented by former Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling, called it an ‘interesting part of Probations history.’ Whilst Napo members would take issue with that description it was good to hear the Chief Probation Officer quickly confirm her agreement that ‘TR had failed.’

Napo’s conclusions

Ian Lawrence comments: ‘Much of the ground covered by Justin Russell will be all too familiar to our members facing excessive workloads, huge numbers of vacancies within their PDU’s and sickness rates which would be a lot worse were it not for the dedication of staff who often present for work when they should not. Adding that: ‘Make no mistake, this excellently produced programme is a sombre and at times traumatic reminder of what happens to public safety when Governments do not listen to the warnings that were made before the disastrous part-privatisation of the service. It seems pretty clear to me that we will need a new Government with a serious pledge to re-invest in the Probation Service before things start to change for the better.’

--oo00oo--

VLO and Interventions Updates and a request

The VLO job descriptions are now (finally) with the trade unions for consultation. All those who attended the workshops will also have a copy of the document, so please send all comments to Carole Doherty for collation in Napo’s formal response. We have also requested a copy of the job description questionnaire but have not yet had a response.

Programmes

The employer unfortunately issued a communication earlier today to all programmes staff, to which Napo immediately objected as it did not accurately reflect the position of the trade unions. Management have subsequently apologised for this error and have now reissued the communication. To be clear, all three trade unions do not agree with the proposed removal of the DSOUs teams (and not just the future direction of programmes to men convicted of sexual offences). Management also identify their intention to operate with just one facilitator job description. This is of course a disappointing result, though we are still arguing the case that more training is needed to equip facilitators with the skill and training needed to work with people convicted of domestic and sexual abuse and learning disabilities and with neuro diversity, and that people should be properly rewarded for it.

Since the last JES workshop we have had 3 all day meetings with the employer which sadly, hasn’t yielded much movement, though it is good to report that the training team has made some adjustments in relation to their proposed training package for new employees, though we are still questioning the robustness of it. The material for the job descriptions has been collated and is with the trade unions for comment, and there is due to be a further joint workshop later this month to discuss the job description questionnaire, prior to it going to the JES panel and we would hope it would be evaluated at Band 4.

Could we ask if anyone has an electronic copy of the previous community programme ‘The Thames Valley Groupwork Programme’ (management manual) and any job descriptions where it describes the role of the facilitators delivering programmes for men convicted of sexual offences. Together with any documentation which highlights the consultancy and/or the training element of their roles, could they send to Carole please.

The Next Generation Programme will be discussed at a meeting later this month, and some workshops are being set up to discuss in more detail with facilitators, TMs and PMs . Due to the strong concerns raised by Napo and the other trade unions, communications have gone out clearly stating that the Next Gen programmes will be separated into offence types and with further separate groups for people with neurodiversity and others for those with intellectual disability.

UPW

We have been made aware of some issues in restricted accommodation in some PDU’s for our Unpaid Work Colleagues, please share details with Carole if this is happening to you. As you will be aware, there are ongoing issues with the pay and Unsocial Hours Payments and, as previously reported, all three unions have registered a National Dispute with the employer in relation to this.

DASOS

It is really good to hear from members that the DASO away day was a really positive experience, and the confidence that the rewriting of the manual will be a truly collaborative exercise.

Matters of Concern

Todays post reminds me of the story concerning the old lady who died and upon her house being cleared out of a lifetimes stuff there was a small box labelled 'string - too short to keep'. Along the way I keep noticing things or people bring to my attention stuff that, of themselves, don't really make a blog post, but are never-the-less worthy of note. I'll start with this image off Twitter this morning:-   

Somewhat ironic isn't it? All that time and effort put in by HMPPS command and control to find a suitable alternative to the long-held and neutral term 'client' via 'case' and 'offender' or 'probationer' and 'licensee' and eventually 'service user', only to come up with the cack-handed 'person on probation' or PoP. But here we have the MoJ casting all that aside and just going for straight labelling - 'burglars, robbers and thieves'. Maybe 'rapists, arsonists and murderers' next? Probation needs to be rid of the MoJ and HMPPS. 

--oo00oo--

Like all good bureaucracies, the MoJ and HMPPS love alphabet soup and acronyms and there's a couple here I recently spotted and have no idea what they mean:- 

New supervision structure for probation staff can only be described at best as overkill at worst as institutional bullying. Staff now have 6 types of supervision:-

1) Performance where 5 objectives are identified for the year and appraised every quarter - this aligns with the old appraisal system.

2) Competency Framework - to progress to next increment.

3) Reflective Practice - not really reflective! 4 x 1-1 sessions with manager and 2x observation - 1-1 are to enable manager to use touchstone to check work is up to standard.

4) SAQUA - case selected by offender manager 1-1 session with manager then appearing before a panel of managers and couple of peers to feed back and be questioned on case. 

5) RCAT 4 times a year case picked at random and quality assured using HMIP format.

6) Monthly supervision as current practice.

Firstly the SAQUA doesn’t acknowledge diversity issues. It also puts one person in front of a panel of up to 6 or 7 people which many would find intimidating and, in some cases, bullied.
There is no proper reflective supervision in any of the above, it is lip service only.

Some staff have suggested the RCAT format is so general and open to interpretation, some staff may be open to bullying, especially if they do not get on with their manager. Have other areas brought this in and has Napo been told of this system? It is operated via one note and each supervision type has a tab to open it. Line managers then have to record against each supervision type!

--oo00oo--

Of course the issue is a serious one and recently highlighted in a speech by HMI Justin Russell:- 

"We've got increasing concerns around the quality of management oversight too, with SPOs being so overloaded they don’t have the space to do the type of reflective supervision which is so important if probation practitioners, particularly newly qualified officers, are to improve their practice." 

It all smacks of this I saw recently:- 

"Probation has become an evil empire of surveillance, coercion and exploitation of both practitioners and service users." 

--oo00oo--

On that note I'll end with this from a reader:-

Hi Jim,

Well, where to start except to say we have moved a giant step towards an enforcement service. I'll keep it brief but, essentially, we now have a database called 'Open'. On one hand it can be useful as it's your caseload in 'real' time, not sure if it's nationwide or not but it tells you how many enforcement and unallocated appointments you have and what ISPs and breaches are due. However, management are using it for their benefit in order to haul us over the coals. 

Basically 3 x AAs and you get an email off your SPO to meet with them and justify the absences and if breach action has been instigated and if not why not, they then put a MO contact on Delius. This has all come about because the MoJ or whoever oversees HMPPS are not happy about all the UPW not being completed.

Anyway, I was asked about other AAs I'd given but they weren't for UPW but general office visits or the CRS ones. So, now not only is it UPW but all probation appointments.

A lad of mine picked up on warrant for a minor breach of FTA that normally I'd have given an AA for but because of the instructions to breach I regrettably did. Court rang with the result and said he was given a £500 fine - and it's just pissed me off so much. We have to work with these men, he isn't a dangerous man he's medium risk and only has RARs, I'm now in the situation of do I give AAs and face a meeting with the SPO or breach and get lads lumbered with huge fines/hours of UPW etc.

In other news, got my payslip today and I'm about £40 per month better off - a band 4 colleague reckons they only less than that - who the hell voted for this deal - we suspect we've been stitched up!

A Reader

A Gem Of An Idea

May I recommend “The Outlaws” on BBC 1, all available on iPlayer.

I matured professionally and personally In Community Service (what a positive concept) in Bristol in the 1980’s. I spent a lot of energy inviting a well-known but reluctant playwright to visit “my” projects. He taught me about the structures of sitcoms. For instance, the need to have a Trap, unlikely characters confined to a particular space. It seemed to me then that a Community Service project was a perfect trap, and a thing worth celebrating.

While I was dragging him fruitlessly around my workplace, admin Elaine Merchant was busy typing away on our state-of-the-art golf ball typewriter in the Fishponds (Bristol suburbs) Probation Office, while her husband Ron supervised clients on placements. Their boy has done not so badly and has a show on the telly which I highly recommend. It’s a slow burn and the blend of really funny (whitewashing an actual Banksy from the wall of a community building) with suspense and grit is unsettling. The Guardian review is here, and I won’t compete, but here are a few comments.

If you are looking for a fly on the wall observation about unpaid work, this isn't it.

It however gets the spirit of Community Service as I first encountered it. A joyful embracing of the weird and disparate people we were and worked with. An understanding that the State is not going to solve individual problems, mainly of its creating, only good connections and care can go anywhere near that.

Having said that, most of our clients were impoverished young men, badly dressed for the weather, rightly cross about the indignity of their situation with us. Aggressive and vulnerable in equal measure in their denim jackets in the freezing wind in a Bristol winter, more vulnerable than threatening. Back then, we would have formed a line with them against any suggestion that they wore hi viz jackets with a label on the back.

The head of Probation Administration (these were powerful people in those days) used to complain that the CS staff were indistinguishable from our clients. I always rather liked that. We identified so much more with them than him. We were alive to the reality that our clients had been failed by the system, had failed the system, and needed us - albeit agents of the system - to try and reconcile this.

Pearly Gates

Grand Plans

What with morale being so low and us all distracted and worn down by Covid concerns, I guess we should have been paying a bit more attention to the government's sentencing White Paper published last September. We covered Napo's initial response here we raised an eyebrow at the aim for a world class service here and other cliche's here, but maybe a close look at the whole probation chapter would be wise:- 

A Smarter Approach to Sentencing

Strengthening the way that offenders are supervised in the community requires a stronger, world-class probation service – one that keeps the public safe through effective community sentences which combine punishment with tailored programmes and treatment requirements to address specific criminogenic needs. With the support of skilled practitioners, a successful period of probation supervision can challenge and motivate offenders to address the causes of their offending. Through our reform programme, our aim is for probation practitioners to have the time, support and tools to develop productive relationships with those they supervise, to deliver interventions directly, and to place offenders with other rehabilitative services.

3. Empowering Probation 

Chapter Summary 

The probation service has for too long operated in the shadows and with the work of its dedicated professionals not sufficiently valued or understood. We want this to change. Probation services deliver more than merely the supervision of offenders. With the support of skilled practitioners, a successful period of probation supervision will see offenders challenged and motivated to address the causes of their offending: supported to find stable accommodation and employment, and to make a sustained move away from relationships, associations or addictions that will lead to reoffending. 

Effective supervision is at the heart of our plans to improve probation services. We want probation practitioners to have the time, support and tools to develop effective relationships with those they supervise, to deliver effective interventions directly, and to place offenders with other rehabilitative services. We will do this through investment and reforms to the way that probation services are delivered, alongside improvements to the powers available to probation practitioners. 

Partnership working: We want to ensure that there is improved strategic delivery and local partnership working. A refreshed joint policing and probation strategy for IOM will be published by the end of 2020. 

Improving the service to victims and the wider community: Community sentences should also be seen to be served in the community and should be actively benefiting the community within which they are being served. We want to make sure that, in particular, there is a greater community voice in determining how Unpaid Work schemes should be focussed to bring about the most benefit. 

Increasing the powers of probation practitioners: We plan to consider the strong arguments for varying the responsibilities and powers available to probation practitioners to enable them to act swiftly and responsively on their professional judgement, to make sure we have a strong and responsive probation service that is delivering reductions in reoffending. 

Introduction

189  Strengthening the way that offenders are supervised in the community requires a stronger, world-class probation service – one that keeps the public safe through the effective supervision of offenders in the community, by delivering programmes and other interventions to address criminogenic needs, and by bringing together a wide range of statutory agencies and private and voluntary organisations to provide rehabilitation and support. 

190  In strengthening probation we want to ensure that services are effective and give confidence to judges, magistrates and the public, and that are structured in a way that supports local partnership working and is responsive to the needs of local areas.

Unifying probation supervision 

191  In May 2019, we announced that when Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) contracts came to an end, all sentence management responsibilities for low-, medium-, and high-risk offenders would be held by the National Probation Service (NPS). This means that from June 2021, the NPS will be responsible for the effective delivery of community sentences, licences and other forms of post-sentence management by ensuring offenders are properly supervised, requirements are coordinated and delivered, risks are managed and enforcement action taken after any breach, including recall to custody. This will sit alongside and complement the existing NPS responsibility for providing advice to courts ahead of sentencing on the most suitable type of sentence for the offender. NPS Wales unified their offender management services in December 2019, and the learning from that process is helping to shape the future design for England. In March 2020 we published a detailed vision for the probation structures in the Draft Target Operating Model for the Future of Probation Services. 

192  In June 2020 we announced changes in this model in response to the experience of COVID-19. Under our revised approach to probation reform, Unpaid Work, Accredited Programmes and Structured Interventions will no longer be contracted out but will instead be delivered by the NPS directly. We consider that bringing these services into the NPS in addition to sentence management will put us in the best possible position to respond to any further disruption caused by COVID-19 and enable a smoother recovery out of exceptional delivery arrangements we have had to put in place. Advice to court will continue to be a core duty of the NPS with increased focus on quality of assessment and pre-sentence reports. The NPS will build on the existing enhanced through the gate services with a new resettlement model which improves links with prisons, enhances pre-release planning by probation practitioners and provides increased focus on short term sentences. 

193  The revised model puts us in the best place to be able to deliver these ambitions. It will facilitate more strategic and integrated probation supervision through fostering close collaboration with strategic partners including local courts and Police and Crime Commissioners.

194  Our approach for all services for Day 1 of the new model will be to move existing CRC staff and delivery models into the NPS with minimal disruption with ongoing work thereafter to embed and improve service delivery. The transition to a level of service as envisaged by the Draft Target Operating Model for probation is likely to take time given the backlogs to Unpaid Work and Accredited Programmes created by exceptional delivery arrangements as well as a likely spike in court orders once jury trials resume. This would be the case regardless of which organisation delivery sat with, but we consider that bringing this work in-house gives us greater flexibility to deal with this. 

Structural and organisational changes to probation 

The National Probation Service (NPS) will be responsible for managing all offenders on a community order or licence following their release from prison in England and Wales. 

The NPS will continue to deliver those services reserved to the public sector such as advice to court. From June 2021, the NPS will also deliver offenders’ Unpaid Work and behavioural change programmes in England and Wales. 

The voluntary and private sectors will play an enhanced role in the probation system, running services such as education, employment, and accommodation commissioned through the Probation Services Dynamic Framework. 

There will be 12 probation areas across England and Wales, introducing 11 new probation areas in England, with existing arrangements remaining unchanged in Wales. 

In England, each area will be overseen by a new dedicated regional director who will provide strategic leadership and be responsible for the overall delivery and commissioning of probation services. 

The regional directors, along with the NPS Director in Wales, will work closely to ensure an effective, unified approach from the pre-sentence stage in court through to supervision in the community. 

We will take action to strengthen the standing of the probation workforce and also make changes that support continuous professional development. 

Benefits of the future model for probation 

195  In developing the future model for probation, we want to ensure that services are effective and provided in a way that judges, magistrates and the public have confidence in, and are structured in a way that supports local partnership working and is responsive to the needs of local areas. 

196  Unifying sentence management under the NPS should have a positive impact on the judiciary’s faith in probation’s ability to deliver, as we know sentencers have expressed greater confidence in the NPS, with whom they have a more direct relationship than CRCs. There will be a single organisation responsible for providing advice to court and delivering the sentence, and we anticipate that this will result in benefits in the preparation of pre-sentence reports (PSRs). 

197  Additionally, it will mean greater central control over the quality of services and enable greater clarity around minimum standards. It will also mean that there will be one probation voice in local partnership arrangements. 

198  The creation of a Dynamic Framework for resettlement and rehabilitative interventions will enable more local commissioning and support the direct participation of smaller voluntary sector and specialist organisations in the delivery of these interventions, something that has not been consistently achieved under the current model. This will help services to be more locally responsive and provide more ready access to services that better address individual needs, particularly vulnerable offenders and those with complex needs. 

Partnership working 

199  Across the system, we want to ensure that there is improved strategic delivery and local partnership working. In creating 11 new probation regions across England, alongside the existing area in Wales, we have sought to achieve the right balance between the potential for efficiencies across the probation system and arrangements that are closer to other criminal justice system structures and which can facilitate partnership working.

200  In England, each of the NPS divisions will be overseen by a Regional Probation Director who will provide strategic leadership and be responsible for the overall delivery and commissioning of probation services. In Wales, the Executive Director for HMPPS already has responsibility for all probation services and prisons, and this will remain unchanged. These leaders will have clear responsibility for strengthening engagement in local and regional partnerships. 

201  This will ensure there is greater transparency around probation performance, that services are responsive to local priorities, and opportunities are taken to co-commission those services that are key to reducing reoffending with partners such as Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), local authorities and health commissioners. 

202  We want to support probation providers to work with local partners to develop innovative services that respond to offenders’ needs. There are already schemes in some areas, and in future we would like to see arrangements develop in other areas. The plans set out in our response to the probation consultation for Regional Directors to have funding reserved for innovative, cross-cutting approaches, will support this.

203  We also want to re-focus how law enforcement partners work together to supervise offenders in the community, through strategic arrangements such as Integrated Offender Management (IOM). IOM enables the police and probation to jointly provide an enhanced supervision of priority offenders identified in local areas in line with the government’s crime reduction and reducing reoffending plans. We will publish a refreshed joint policing and probation strategy for IOM by the end of 2020. 

204  Community sentences should also be seen to be served in the community and should be actively benefiting the community within which they are being served. We want to make sure that, in particular, there is a greater community voice in determining how Unpaid Work schemes should be focussed to bring about the most benefit. This is why we are introducing a statutory duty for probation to consult a range of voices when designing and delivering Unpaid Work placements and schemes. Further detail on the design of Unpaid Work under the new model for probation is available in the ‘Supervising Offenders in the Community’ chapter of this paper. 

Probation Workforce Programme 

205  In January 2020, the Probation Workforce Programme was launched to ensure the wider changes happening in probation go hand-in-hand with positive changes for our workforce. Our staff are integral to the successful operation of the NPS model, and we need to ensure we have a motivated and professional workforce that can deliver for the probation service.

206  The Workforce Programme will seek to address the significant shortfall of trained probation officers in the system by focusing on four key workstreams: capacity and efficiency, capability, pay rewards and policies, and infrastructure. This will ultimately ensure that we have the right number of people with the right capabilities and appropriate support to deliver a strong and effective service both now and in the future. The workforce strategy was launched in July 2020 and we have already started recruiting new probation staff. This strategy set out our commitment to increase recruitment of probation staff this year and have a minimum of 1000 new probation practitioners in training by January 2021. Our ambition is to make sure probation officers have manageable and varied caseloads and are encouraged specialisms. As part of this work, we will explore options to improve the professionalisation of the probation officer and probation support officer role. 

Trusting probation staff to take action 

207  We want to make sure that probation practitioners have the necessary powers to be able to properly supervise offenders in the community, in particular, that they are able to act quickly and responsively to behaviour that needs to be addressed without necessarily needing to return to the courts. 

208  A core function of the probation service is to supervise offenders in the community. That is, to require an offender to attend an appointment so the probation practitioner responsible for their sentence can identify existing or emerging needs and risks, and either provide interventions directly or refer them to other organisations. For offenders released from custody, this kind of supervision is built into the duration of their licence. 

209  In contrast, not all Community Orders or Suspended Sentence Orders provide for this general supervision power for the length of the order. Unless an Order contains a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR), legislation as currently framed explicitly provides for supervision only in connection with the requirements imposed by the order. While offenders are under a general duty to keep in touch with their Responsible Officer in accordance with such instructions they may be given from time to time, the legislation does not clarify what ‘keeping in touch’ means and if it includes attending probation supervision appointments. 

210  In practice, this means that a probation practitioner who may wish to supervise offenders who have completed all of their requirements (but whose Order has not expired), do not currently have legislative cover to do so unless the Order contains a RAR. Also, practitioners who may wish to supervise offenders for reasons unconnected to the requirements of the Order do not currently have legislative cover to do so. 

211  We believe there is an important role for the Court in setting out the requirement(s) an offender should undertake as part of their community order at the point of sentencing. And the priority of the probation service must always be to support the purpose of the Order and the administration of justice. However, we also believe there is merit in probation staff having sufficient flexibility within their prescribed duties and responsibilities to respond to the unique journey of each offender as they progress through their sentence. Supervision unconnected to requirements, carried out after the completion of requirements, may be warranted for two reasons. First, the Responsible Officer may feel that supervision is necessary to address issues that either arise post-sentencing and are not strictly related to the original requirements, or after requirements are complete and remain outstanding. Second, the Responsible Officer may also feel supervision is necessary if there is reason to believe that the offender’s level of risk to the public has increased. 

212  We will therefore legislate to give probation practitioners greater flexibility to take appropriate action where they have concerns about an offender’s rehabilitative needs or risk to the public. In practice, this would empower Responsible Officers to compel offenders to attend supervision appointments and, where appropriate, participate in rehabilitative activities for the length of a Community Order or Suspended Sentence (either through supervision sessions or onwards referral to other organisations). 

213  Alongside this change, we plan to consider the arguments for varying the responsibilities and powers available to probation practitioners to enable them to act swiftly and responsively on their professional judgement. We want to take the opportunity provided by the Probation Reform programme to bring about greater change. 

214  It is currently possible for courts to bring community sentences to a conclusion before the original end date if the individual has sufficiently fulfilled the order’s requirements. Where offenders breach their order, there is a process where Responsible Officers can give warnings before taking enforcement proposals to court. 

215  We recognise that swift breach action where individuals fail to comply with a requirement of the court’s order is central in securing public confidence in community sentences, as well as having the potential to further influence and change offender behaviour. Effective use of community sentences relies on the relationship between the probation practitioner and the offender; we therefore need to ensure that probation has the right mechanisms, tools and powers to support and enhance this relationship. 

216  Other jurisdictions will mark progress made by offenders with events recognising the positive changes they have made. In England and Wales, we have seen examples of offender achievements being recognised with letters or certificates. For individuals who have experienced difficult relationships with the state, for example through the education system or the care system, it may be the first time anyone in authority has ever acknowledged progress. 

217  In view of this, as well as the potential to harness the improvements to the probation service brought about by reform, we will further explore the options and their implications. There is a spectrum through which we could consider giving probation practitioners a range of more immediate options before taking an order back to court: 

• ‘Administrative’ variation of existing requirements to respond to an offender’s changes in circumstances. We are pursuing this policy via the powers to vary timings of curfews, outlined in this paper. 

• Flexible enforcement of court-imposed requirements, that would allow the Responsible Officer to adjust and vary these requirements to encourage and influence changes in offender behaviour. Under this model, we would consider whether the sentencer (at sentencing) should specify the minimum and maximum number of hours to be completed at the discretion of the offender manager.

• Imposition of new requirements for non-compliance/breach. 

218  Options under this spectrum could mark a distinct change in the way in which probation supervise offenders in the community. We believe that enhanced powers could afford probation staff greater flexibility to respond to offenders’ needs in a way that reflects their professionalism and expertise. 

219  However, within this policy, it is vital that the flexibility afforded to probation is consistent with the court’s original sentence. Due to the importance of the relationship between the courts and probation, we will explore these options with relevant key stakeholders to decide on the most appropriate and effective powers to potentially introduce. 

Conclusion 

220  In order for community supervision to work effectively, it needs to be accompanied by a robust probation service, to fulfil the key aims of protecting the public while also providing support for offenders who wish to turn their lives around. 

221  This chapter has reiterated plans for the National Probation Service. By strengthening probation in this way, we want to ensure that services are effective for those who require them and give the public confidence in the system.

All Your Questions Answered

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

Frequently Asked Questions 

Last Updated: 30th June 2020 

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

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

What will happen to Through The Gate staff and services? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the probation reforms? 

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

Why are we reforming the probation system? 

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

What are the new probation regions?

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

Who are the leaders of the new probation regions? 

The Regional Probation Directors are: 

• Nic Davies (interim) for Wales 

• Andrea Bennett for North West 

• Chris Edwards for Greater Manchester 

• Bronwen Elphick for North East 

• Lynda Marginson for Yorkshire and The Humber 

• Sarah Chand for West Midlands 

• Martin Davies for East Midlands 

• Steve Johnson-Proctor for East of England 

• Kilvinder Vigurs for London 

• Angela Cossins for South West 

• Gabriel Amahwe for South Central 

• Mary Pilgrim for Kent, Surrey and Sussex. 

Will the model be the same in England and Wales? 

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

What will the regional structures look like? 

Each regional senior leadership team will consist of a: 

• Head of Operations 

• Head of Community Integration, Commissioning and Contract Management, 

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

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

How will sentence management change? 

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

How will resettlement change? 

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

How will these reforms enhance public protection?

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

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

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

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

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

How will accredited programmes change? 

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

How will unpaid work change? 

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

What do we mean by structured interventions? 

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

How will treatment requirements change?

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

How will rehabilitative interventions change? 

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

How will IT systems work in this model? 

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

Will there be disruption to IT? 

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

Will staff and user data be protected during the changes? 

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

Will these changes happen within the agreed timeframe? 

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

How will you protect staff and services during the transition? 

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

What are the plans to renew and renovate probation buildings? 

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

When will staff know where they will be moving? 

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

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

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

Will we still be using Oasys? 

The intention is to continue using the Oasys platform. 

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

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

Can CRC owners bid for the services we are outsourcing? 

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

How will quality be measured? 

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

Will these changes level out pay between NPS and CRCs? 

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

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

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

Will staff be made redundant in the NPS? 

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

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

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

Will I need to reapply for my job? 

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

Will I move workplace? 

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

Will there be opportunities for voluntary early departure? 

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

What about my pension? 

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

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

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

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

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

How will these changes impact my workload? 

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

How will you improve staff workload and recruitment? 

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

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

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

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

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

Will more change exacerbate this? 

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

What are you doing to improve NPS retention rates? 

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

Will there be development opportunities for PSOs? 

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

What will the future of probation officer training be? 

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

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

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

What will change in terms of learning and development? 

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

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

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