Napo has pushed for a fundamental review of OMiC (Offender Management in Custody) for years and we welcome in principle the recent announcement of this by HMPPS. OMIC has never worked as it was intended to. In far too many prisons across England and Wales staffing levels have been too low, with too much work expected of Probation staff, with constant change throughout the time of OMiC's existence, for example the following two developments that have been implemented by HMPPS in recent years. The line management of Senior Probation Officer's in Offender Management Units (OMUs) passing to Governor-grade staff in public sector Prisons, consistently opposed by Napo, has been incredibly problematic and stressful for those involved. The merger of Pre-Release Teams and OMUs has also increased the push/pull factors on role boundaries, job descriptions and spans of control for management and probation staff alike.
The review is being undertaken by means of 2 different surveys and face to face workshops. Unfortunately, the unions did not have sight of these documents until they were sent out to OMU and other Prison staff. Members have been contacting us regarding the length and suitability of questions in this survey, many telling us it's taking too much of their already scarce time to complete and they don't really know what they are being asked for. This raises concerns about the accuracy of the survey if it is disregarded, returned incomplete or incorrectly filled in. The survey results alone cannot become the sole basis for reconstruction if they are so flawed. If I can compare the survey to the foundations of a house we already seem to be heading for considerable subsidence.
We recently received a letter from the HMPPS senior leaders regarding this review, setting out the following aims:
Align with sentencing reform – so we can deliver the sentence progression requirements introduced by ISR without compromising public protection standards
Unfortunately we have not yet seen details of how this will look and the processes involved in order to try to mitigate the impact of these changes on our members. Napo continue to have significant concerns about the additional work this will require of Probation staff, in prisons as well as the community, and the basic feasibility of these 'progression' proposals in the current Sentencing Bill.
Release workforce capacity – streamline case management processes and rebalance prison and probation roles, thereby releasing some Probation Officer resource for deployment to priority areas of active public risk.
While we have received assurances from HMPPS centrally that the redeployment of Probation staff in Prisons is not the object of this review we are receiving mixed messages as the above aim seems to be supporting such moves. Similarly, an ongoing activity timing review involving OMIC includes a separate survey of prison roles being undertaken as part of workforce planning, and we have been made aware some members of regional senior management are already telling people this will result in moving prison probation staff back to the field. Again, Napo has not been officially informed of these potentially dramatic changes which, in our view, is totally unacceptable practice and is not in the spirit of meaningful consultation. We will continue to support and represent our members working in Prisons who are being impacted by this chaotic approach being taken, or allowed to persist, by HMPPS. We will continue to bring pressure on the employer to ensure Napo and all other relevant trade unions are appropriately included going forwards. If you become aware of discussions or comments on the potential redeployment of Prison-based staff please notify us and ensure you raise it with your local Branch for inclusion on the local/regional meetings that take place between the trade unions and employer.
Provide operational consistency and quality – reduce model complexity, clarify roles for Prison Offender Managers (POMs) and Community Offender Managers (COMs), and embed a single, nationally understood way of working.
This is the most straightforward aim and Napo has no issues with this as it underpins the reasons for the review. The way in which this is being done, and the apparent failure of appropriate trade union consultation, is the issue.
Produce digital enablement – propose pragmatic adjustments to OASys/ARNS and hand over processes.
While we agree with the sentiment, we would all love to be able to streamline OASys and the new ARNS assessment, we are sensible of the fact there still need to be a robust and accurate risk assessment and risk management plan in place for cases. We have very real concerns that community-based Probation staff will be left having to pick up more tasks if pre-release work is 'pragmatically adjusted' without careful consideration and planning on the impact of all involved.
Enable timely national implementation – by Spring 2026.
The review is expected to conclude by the end of the year, with implementation of agreed changes scheduled for Spring 2026, in line with Independent Sentencing Review recommendations.
Given the scope of the review, issues with the surveys and the lack of proper trade union consultation it is likely this a wholly unrealistic deadline. Napo is willing to work with the employer on behalf of our members but we need not only a seat at the table but access to significant information that seems to be currently withheld from us. This is not the kind of working relationship that helps support staff morale or retention.
We were informed that "Engagement sessions were underway with frontline staff, operational leaders, and key stakeholders providing valuable insights into current challenges and opportunities" These have now completed without giving the unions enough warning to be able to support our members to have meaningful engagement with them. This is a shame as it is vital to get your voices heard. I would urge members to report back to Napo with any issues, concerns and positives that come out of these sessions so we can be as informed as possible in order to support you. We are told that "Formal consultation with Trade Unions (POA, PGA, NTUS, and Probation TUs: NAPO, UNISON, GMB SCOOP) will follow once proposals are finalised."
We would argue we should be involved in helping to formulate these proposals instead of having to untangle the problems when they are implemented.
If you'd like to contact Napo with feedback on these issues please email:
Tania Bassett tbassett@napo.org.uk
Charron Culnane cculnane@napo.org.uk
Please also copy your branch in so that they are aware of your concerns as well.