Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HM Inspectorate of Probation Arolygiaeth Prawf EM An inspection of probation services in Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company HM Inspectorate of Probation JANUARY 2019 This inspection was led by HM Inspector Lisa Parker, supported by a team of inspectors and operations and corporate staff. The manager responsible for this inspection programme is Helen Rinaldi. We would like to thank all those who participated in any way in this inspection. Without their help and cooperation, the inspection would not have been possible. © Crown copyright 2019 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence or email [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information, you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available for download at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation Published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation 1st Floor Civil Justice Centre 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M3 3FX Inspection of probation services: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland CRC 2 Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................. 4 Overall findings .................................................................................................... 5 Summary of ratings ............................................................................................ 10 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 11 Background ....................................................................................................... 12 Contextual facts ................................................................................................. 14 1. Organisational delivery ........................................................................ 15 1.1. Leadership .......................................................................................... 16 1.2 Staff ................................................................................................... 17 1.3. Services .............................................................................................. 18 1.4. Information and facilities ...................................................................... 20 2. Case supervision .................................................................................. 22 2.1. Assessment ......................................................................................... 23 2.2 Planning ............................................................................................. 24 2.3. Implementation and delivery ................................................................ 25 2.4. Reviewing ........................................................................................... 27 4. Unpaid work and Through the Gate ..................................................... 28 4.1. Unpaid work ........................................................................................ 29 4.2. Through the Gate ................................................................................ 30 Annex 1: Methodology ........................................................................................ 31 Annex 2: Inspection results: domains two and three ............................................. 33 Annex 3: Operating model and map .................................................................... 35 Annex 4: Glossary .............................................................................................. 41 Inspection of probation services: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland CRC 3 Foreword Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland (DLNR) is the second of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) owned by the Reducing Reoffending Partnership that we have inspected over the past year. We found that DLNR CRC requires improvement. Its sister CRC, Staffordshire and West Midlands, also received the same rating and there are some common themes. Resources are tight in DLNR. Tough decisions have been made by the organisation, including reductions in posts and premises. To make savings, the CRC opted to use a very basic approach to assessing individuals. As a result, the information key to effective sentence plans is much too scant. A few months before our inspection, this practice had been changed but it was too early to see improvement. In practice, the poor quality of assessments and reviews contributed to the risk of harm not being managed properly in domestic abuse and child safeguarding cases. This is concerning, given the recommendations we made in our thematic inspection of domestic abuse1 when we visited Leicester, part of this CRC. Key findings from that inspection have been seen again in DLNR. The CRC needs to act quickly to improve its handling of risk of harm, to protect victims. A high proportion of staff are not equipped with the knowledge or skill needed to do essential work to reduce the risk of people committing more crime. They are not given the time to do that work well either. The CRC should urgently review its approach to learning and development, so that staff can have confidence in their professional work. Resources also need to be addressed. We found unpaid work and Through the Gate services to be good. People are seen quickly after sentence and offered services matched to their needs. We saw real drive from all the Through the Gate staff and a recognition that, although outcomes need to improve, they will go the extra mile to provide a good service in demanding prison settings. Coordination and communication between the different staff involved are some of the best we have seen so far in this inspection programme. Leaders in the CRC are committed and passionate. They aim to provide services that will improve the opportunities of people under probation supervision to move away from crime and rehabilitate. The organisation understands its challenges well. I was heartened to see a good grip on business risk. Its attention on quality assurance and continuous improvement has ensured that contractual performance is good, and now the challenge is to lift quality. Dame Glenys Stacey Chief Inspector of Probation 1 HMI Probation. (September 2018). Domestic Abuse: The Work Undertaken by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). Inspection of probation services: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland CRC 4 Overall findings Overall, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland (DLNR) CRC is rated as: Requires improvement. This rating has been determined by inspecting this provider in three areas of their work, referred to as ‘domains’. The findings and subsequent ratings in those three domains are described here: Organisational delivery Our key findings about the organisation were as follows: • The CRC is well led and has a clear vision, mission and set of values Energy and effort have been put into setting a clear vision for the CRC. Our Shared Commitments is a key document that describes what the organisation is trying to achieve. Communication is cascaded well from the top of the CRC. Middle managers are positive and determined to improve case management and services. There is still much to do to embed the operating model. Over the past year, many initiatives have been started to improve quality and efficiency. These include increased quality assurance and risk management. Many areas have yet to show significant results. We saw promising strategy, plans and governance, however, that gave us confidence that the leadership in DLNR is good. Strategic work with partners, including the National Probation Service, is good. We saw evidence of service user engagement and mature partnerships that worked to find solutions for people under supervision and for staffing issues. • Staff are not given enough opportunity to undertake essential work with people under supervision because they had insufficient skills and knowledge, and high workloads Accurate, impactful work is not being achieved because staff knowledge is not sufficiently comprehensive, and their skills are lacking in some areas. Most staff report having the skills and knowledge for their work but the work products we saw showed this was not the case. Some staff have excessive workloads and this also impacts on their ability to carry out necessary work. There is too little management oversight to ensure that cases are being managed correctly. This was particularly noticeable in risk of harm work with domestic abuse and child safeguarding cases. Staff reported that meeting the CRC contract measures is given priority, rather than quality. Staff have regular individual meetings but these tend to concentrate on meeting targets and do not provide enough opportunities for developing their practice. A culture of learning and continuous improvement is not yet established. Inspection of probation services: Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland CRC 5 • A good range of serviCes helps to support people to reduce their reoffending and risky behaviours but more needs to be done to offer equitable serviCes across all the areas that DLNR CRC serves The CRC has worked with suppliers to provide interventions around rehabilitation,