The second part of a wide-ranging inspection looking at Offender
Management in Custody, by HM Inspectorate of Probation, has shown
the stark – and often alarming – reality facing those released
from prison.
The findings affirm the warnings made following the publication of the
first report: Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) –
pre-release (a joint inspection with HM Inspectorate of
Prisons), in November 2022, which found ‘root-to-branch issues’
and concluded that the model ‘simply isn’t working’, calling for
a fundamental review.
This HM Inspectorate of
Probation follow-up report, Offender Management in Custody (OMiC)
– post-release tracked the same prisoners, from part one, for
up to nine months after release from prison. It looked at the
support put in place (such as housing), services to prevent
reoffending, the analysis of risk of serious harm, and the
staffing and workload of prison and probation services
implementing the OMiC model.
It found:
- Only four out of every 10 prisoners in our case sample went
into settled accommodation on release from custody.
- Just eight per cent of those available for work went into
employment.
- Recall rates were high, with 30 per cent on average being
returned to custody - four in 10 of these were within 28 days of
being released.
- In some probation regions, almost half were recalled to
prison.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “I continue to
have serious concerns about the effectiveness of the Offender
Management in Custody model. Our inspection shows a significant
number of released prisoners on licence, with no settled address
and little engagement in meaningful employment. Therefore, sadly,
it should come as little surprise to see people being recalled
back to prison. If those responsible for sentence management in,
and after, custody need a wake-up call, this is it.
“We are seeing, too often, a breakdown in communication between
prison and probation staff. This is, in part, down to there being
too few staff and too many cases to manage. However, our evidence
also suggests that the model itself is overly complex and hampers
efforts to plan for release – it needs to work in practice, not
just in theory, and at the moment it isn’t.”
Serious risk of harm
In a familiar story, reflective of our recent regional
inspections and independent Serious Further Offence reviews, work
to reduce the risk those released from prison pose to others fell
well short of expectations:
- Assessment, planning, and case reviewing to manage the risks
of people on probation was of sufficient quality in only half of
inspected cases
- Domestic abuse checks were completed in just under half the
cases where required.
- Delays in receiving information from police and children’s
services.
- Some practitioners lacked the professional curiosity to
understand the prison leaver’s personal circumstances and who
they were in contact with.
Mr Russell added: “Arrangements for preparing prisoners for
release and then for managing these cases in the community must
be improved, and urgently.
“We have been assured, in the past year, that domestic abuse
checks should and have been carried out where needed. But, even
in this relatively small case sample, it is not happening. Prison
and probation practitioners must have access to, and use, all the
relevant information about a person who has been released from
prison.”
Resettlement and other services
Most recalls to custody were caused by homelessness, a return to
drug or alcohol misuse or a failure to ensure continuity of a
case pre and post release – not by re-offending.
Where the prison leaver had substance misuse, linked to their
offending, we found that less than a quarter of the cases we
inspected had received sufficient help with this need. Only half
of the cases inspected had received sufficient support with
finance and benefits advice or with employment and training. Only
51 per cent of cases showed an improvement in their accommodation
status in the first six months after release.
Relationships between practitioners and service providers varied.
Referral processes were often not well understood, and probation
and provider staff had different views on the level of
intervention needed for people on probation, especially for
women.
However, we did find that the provision of temporary
accommodation (providing housing for up to 84 days after release)
– though not available to all probation regions – was working
well.
Staffing and workload
Staff shortages and high workloads do not support the delivery of
a high-quality service.
Of the practitioners we interviewed, 55 per cent stated that
their workload was not so, or not at all, manageable.
Practitioners told us that high workloads have a significant
impact on the quality of practice and leave them little time to
plan and complete structured offence-focused work. Some were
visibly stressed and reported working long hours to try to manage
their workload.
There are significant difficulties with staff retention.
Inspectors were told that experienced, newly-qualified and
trainee probation officers leave for a variety of reasons,
including finding the work too stressful, moving to better-paid
work, taking retirement and being promoted.
ENDS
Notes to editor
- The report is available on HM Inspectorate of
Probation website on 14 March 2023.
- The organisation responsible for OMiC is HMPPS.
- At the time of writing, there is an 1,846 shortfall of
full-time employed probation officers in post against the
required staffing level of 6,160 (30 per cent).
- Fieldwork for this thematic inspection took place in October
2022.
