THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL PROBATION
SERVICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS STRATEGY
MEETING
THE
COMPUTING
NEEDS
OF
LOCAL
PROBATION
SERVICES
16. The NPSISS strategy had helped to improve communications
within the National Probation Service and create a computer literate
workforce. It had introduced an information technology culture,
improved communication with other probation services and, in some
areas, improved the quality of operational information. Thirty
of the 47 services with NPSISS reported at least some benefit
to the quality of service provided to offenders. However, a majority
reported little or no benefit in terms, for example, of improved
financial information, external communications or savings in administrative
support.[16]
17. The Home Office's original business case for
both NPSISS and CRAMS had anticipated productivity gains arising
from reduced non-productive work by professional staff and a reduced
requirement for support staff. The plan had forecast savings of
around £240 million over 10 years at 1994 prices. However,
the Home Office did not monitor the costs and benefits of the
programme against the original projections. Although productivity
within the Service increased by some 18 per cent over the period
covered by the implementation of the system, equivalent to about
£16 million a year, only 18 of the services surveyed by the
National Audit Office reported improvements in probation officer
productivity as a direct result of the new systems.[17]
18. Whilst much of the cost of the information technology
strategy lay with the installation of the computer network, the
Home Office expected most of the benefits to arise from the introduction
of CRAMS. However, ergonomic assessments carried out in 1999 and
2000 concluded that the software put excessive demands on those
staff using and learning the system; and that there was a potentially
high risk of stress to users. The National Probation Service is
now working with unions and ergonomic specialists to improve CRAMS
and ensure that new Probation Service information technology systems
meet health and safety requirements.[18]
19. Probation services still have to rely on paper
based systems to retain and access information on offenders presenting
a risk of harm to the public.[19]
The Chief Inspector of Probation had examined these issues in
2000 and concluded that the lack of information technology had
not compromised safety or put staff at risk. This limitation was
nevertheless a concern. The National Probation Service confirmed
that, although CRAMS did not assist probation officers to do their
job in the way hoped, public protection work continued to be carried
out.[20]
20. CRAMS has cost almost £11 million at
constant prices to develop and support over its lifetime, more
than twice the expected amount. The Home Office and Integris underestimated
the technical risks associated with developing CRAMS from an existing
software package. The original user interface, developed by the
Northumbria Probation Service, had been acceptable locally, but
other probation services were less happy with it. Despite subsequent
improvements made to CRAMS, the changes were still not sufficient
to persuade all probation services to adopt the software.[21]
By April 2001, over half of all probation services continued to
use alternative case management systems or had developed facilities
to supplement CRAMS.[22]
21. Concerns about CRAMS had been raised by some
local probation services as far back as 1996. Whilst action was
taken to resolve specific issues as they arose, the Home Office
often found it difficult to obtain a consensus from probation
services. Local views were very mixed. The Home Office concluded,
however, that it had not always involved probation services closely
enough in the specification of what was needed. The Home Office
had failed, for example, to put together a strategy for communicating
with probation services despite a recommendation from consultants
in 1996. The National Probation Service is now working to increase
levels of user engagement in the current management and organisation
of the Probation Service. Information technology representatives
from the probation services sit on project management boards;
and users are involved in the design of new systems, the testing
of their acceptability and identifying how to improve them.[23]
22. Forty-two of the probation services surveyed
by the National Audit Office reported either no benefit or a detrimental
impact on communication with other bodies in the Criminal Justice
System. The National Probation Service indicated that sharing
case information via information technology links with other agencies
was likely to be about three years away. The Service is currently
developing with the Prison Service an offender assessment system
(OASYS). Initially paper-based, this arrangement is intended to
enable Probation Officers and Prison Service staff to carry out,
within a common specification, assessments of an offender's risk
to themselves and others. The information technology support for
the new system is being developed separately for the two Services
with the intention of achieving some convergence within the next
three years.[24]
Conclusions
23. NPSISS has delivered some, but not all, expected
benefits to local probation services. The absence of rigorous
monitoring against the original business plan has, however, made
it impossible to assess the full impact of the programme. Management
information systems should be in place to enable the costs of
information technology projects to be monitored against plans,
progress to be reviewed against milestones and, crucially, the
achievement of the desired impact on services to be assessed.
24. The impact of new information technology systems
on staff should be assessed regularly, and health and safety issues
addressed quickly.
25. In introducing any replacement to CRAMS the National
Probation Service should put in place appropriate information
technology systems to support the supervision of potentially dangerous
offenders.
26. Neither the Home Office nor its supplier fully
appreciated the risks of developing CRAMS from an existing software
application. In taking forward future information technology projects,
the National Probation Service should identify all key risks,
including technical risks, and put in place plans for managing
the risks. In particular, where monitoring reveals significant
departures from planned delivery, costs and benefits, the risks
of continuing with the project should be compared with alternative
strategies before deciding the way forward.
27. Users were not engaged sufficiently closely in
the specification of the information technology systems by the
Home Office. User involvement should be built into project management
structures, and users' representatives should be sufficiently
knowledgeable to carry those they represent with them.
16 C&AG's Report, paras 2.7-2.8 and Appendix 5,
Section 3; Qs 9, 24, 94, 123 Back
17
C&AG's Report, paras 2.5, 3.6, and Appendix 5, Section 3 Back
18
C&AG's Report, paras 2.5, 2.13; Qs 26-28, 70-71, 156-157 Back
19
C&AG's Report, para 2.15; Q10 Back
20
Qs 10-11 Back
21
C&AG's Report, paras 11, 2.25-2.28; Qs 44, 69, 115, 139-142,
213 Back
22
C&AG's Report, paras 8, 11, 2.12-2.17, and Figure 7;
Qs 10-11, 18, 213 Back
23
C&AG's Report, paras 2.22, 2.29-2.30; Qs 55, 150-155 Back
24
C&AG's Report, paras 2.9-2.10 and Appendix 5, Section 3;
Q16 Back
|
