I wonder what it must be like to work down at MoJ/Noms HQ at the moment? Not knowing from one week to the next what's happening and trying to make sense of the Minister's latest barmy ideas when you know they won't work. One week HMP Dorchester is scheduled to be part of a grand plan for 50 resettlement prisons. The next week it's closing. One week, there is no alternative but to impose legal aid Price Competitive Tendering. The next there's a u-turn. One week the split between the CRC's and NPS is 70/30. The next it's 50/50.
We know they're working really hard down there at HQ because Probation Trust chairs were told this during a hastily-arranged teleconference yesterday. Joe Kuipers, Chair of Avon and Somerset Probation Trust, revealed the gist of the conference call in several tweets and the message is firmly that 'TR will happen!'
Such a statement has the ring of Chris Grayling about it when he's angry and at his most defensive. When it all goes pear-shaped, as it most surely will, his humiliation will be that much more complete. I think the alarmingly-frank admission from officials that 'many questions remain' should send a shiver down those at HM Treasury and the No10 Policy Implementation Unit and set alarm bells ringing.
Of course the Trust Boards still have a key role to play in the whole omnishambles saga as each has to decide whether to accept the contract changes being imposed by the MoJ, and we will be watching and holding each to account as they consider the matter. How fortunate we are that one Trust Board broke ranks from the Probation Association over TR and are prepared to continue ploughing an independent furrow.
Apparently mention was made of the union negotiations at the teleconference, but its passage towards acceptance looks to be even more bumpy with at least one Napo branch losing patience and beginning the process to try and ensure that matters are deferred until the AGM at Llandudno in October. I understand that certain key documents are still not available, despite the NEC decision date being barely 10 days away.
Despite the 'upbeat' nature of the spin coming out of MoJ/Noms HQ, word is that there are unmistakable signs of interest waning amongst potential bidders for the work, and especially 'primes'. People are getting jittery as it becomes ever more clear that the MoJ don't really know how it's all going to work, a situation completely mirroring that found by the recent National Audit Office report into the Universal Benefit project. Can a government really afford to have so much going wrong at this point in the electoral cycle? A beleaguered Prime Minister will be considering a reshuffle of his cabinet soon and it will be very interesting to see how this pans out.
Staff continue to jump ship in considerable numbers and I've recently been in offices where those remaining are rattling around amidst a sea of empty workstations. Workloads are becoming so critical that I hear questionable practices are being adopted in certain Trusts, such as the so-called 'cold OASys'. It would seem that staff are being directed to complete OASys assessments based solely on other colleagues FDR paperwork, but with clients unseen by the assessor. I know OASys is basically crap, but this practice strikes me as both completely unprofessional and useless.
Re: assessments without seeing the client - if the new NPS is really to do all pre- and post-sentence assessments, then I can't see any way how this could be achieved with inconvenient and time-consuming things like interviews. A caseload that is at least 20% larger than now being assessed by a workforce anywhere between 20-50% the size of the current Service? The numbers will never add up!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your assessment of the spin - if there wasn't any doubt about the progression of TR then no-one would need to be told that it "will happen". I'm not sure yet whether the U-turn on legal aid makes a TR reverse more or less likely, but Chris Grayling and the rest of the MoJ are obviously rattled.
Very well done to any Trust that has broken ranks from the Probation Association - and I think individual Napo branches need to do the same and reject whatever deal has been cooked up.
It was a significant U-turn on legal aid. There will still be cuts and restrictions to aid, but no imposition of price competitive tendering – the totemic proposal. This is a defeat for ideology – an acknowledgement that quality matters and you can't safeguard quality if you go to the lowest bidder.
ReplyDeleteGrayling is more vulnerable as a consequence of this U-turn, he has lost face. This is not the time for Napo to be doing deals with the MoJ and smoothing the path to TR. This is the time to lead fiery opposition against TR. Forget appeasement, show leadership and fight TR. Let's have a vote for industrial action and use the time leading up to the vote to win the hearts and minds of the membership. The alternative – without even a fight - is a humiliating surrender of a renowned public service.
Probation Officers, at least, are professional, and many PSOs have sufficient experience to take on the mantle of being a professional.
ReplyDeleteWhat to me being a professional is, is not being browbeaten by any manager at any time to take actions that you consider are detrimental to public safety.
So that would include refusing to do a 'cold' OAsys - or whatever the slang is. If a direct order is given, demand that it is a signed written instruction and if you then do something that is basically unprofessional - qualify the assessment with a suitable remark. Your trade union membership should support this.
This is not a completely new situation, although some folk may have been undertaking dangerous practices for years.
I had no problem in writing a PSR, saying I cannot undertake a full assessment as I have not had the opportunity to do this or that - usually a home visit.
I was never disciplined by a management for such action and I cannot remember court criticism - if anything the opposite from courts - I made it a very high priority - inculcated from my student days in Liverpool to always attend court when submitting a report for a current client and in other cases if the conclusion was likely to be contentious. I also tried to attend court in all cases where I anticipated a prison sentence would result - I wanted to do the cell interview after - which in my experience was wheres some of my most useful relationships with clients were cemented that could then be carried into the sentence and possibly even the parole process - eventually - or passed on to the colleague who took over the case.
Back in the days - when to save courts time we wrote response reports on current clients who were up for trial on a later case - Napo policy was not to do that, but I breached the policy, as my experience was that crown courts would not adjourn post a conviction after a late plea or a trial.
TO BE CONTINUED
CONTINUED
DeleteI once was supervising a young man, who at the time of the alleged offence - rape on an elderly woman patient of a psychiatric hospital - where he was also compulsorily detained, due to drug related psychosis. He was also charged alternatively with attempted rape and an even lesser indecency offence(can't remember what).
The psychiatric hospital reported the incident to the police and (questionably) immediately discharged him as fit to plead.
He was very vulnerable and I found a probation hostel provisionally willing to accept him after a trial period as a bail condition.
Obviously if he was convicted of rape he was going to get a custodial sentence - he was about 19 years old - My SER (it was pre 91) concluded that in certain circumstances the hostel option with psychiatric treatment may be what is best available to reduce the likelihood of further offences.
He was vague about what actually happened with the woman, in his interviews with me, but under cross examination described behaviour that indicated he had committed rape - whether or not he understood what was going on is another matter - he got 7 years and I was called into the box and given a public dressing down by the Judge - it was very wrong of me to raise his expectations etc. - he said I was to see him privately.
The private meeting followed, he would hear nothing from me, and repeated his condemnation of the client and me. I thanked him for his opinion and walked out - no more was said, by anyone of me. I had given my professional opinion and so done my job - he had done is! There is much more that could be said about that client afterwards, but that is not for now.
If our qualifications mean anything, it is that we know when we have the information needed to make an assessment and when we don't and when we don't we are - I believe - duty bound not to make an assessment.
This is easy from a retired keyboard basher, but I do not know how I would feel integrity wise if I had colluded with some of the management japes, I saw.
I wish you all well and hope you are all members of your trades unions and take part in the decision making of that union as far as you are able.
If you join Napo today, you will have personal support in grievance or disciplinary matters in three months, by December 6th - this job switch malarkey is likely to continue until after that.
Andrew Hatton
"A cold OASys"? Well, given that it's a three-in-one assessment you could do the first, number-crunching, bit as usual from static info and get the scores on the doors. You're snookered for the second, sections 2 - 13, bit as this would involve interviewing the offender. For the last, risky, bit you could toss a coin to assess High or Low ROSH. This would at least be 50% accurate - can anyone out there tell me the %age accuracy for OASys so I can compare it with a tossed ten pence (Don Grubin once did but I've forgotten the figure)? So there we are then, a two-thirds OASys - more tepid than cold.
DeleteGreat write up from Mike Guilfoyle about the reality of Probation and centrality of professional relationship(s)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.worksforfreedom.org/all-articles/item/883-mike-guilfoyle
I think you're all missing the point. Of course practice under the TR agenda will be crap. Of course it's not going to work and of course the CRCs will eventually go the cheapest bid.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the point. This is about two things.
1/ Political ideology
2/ Chris Grayling's ambitions for political advancement.
There are therefore only 2 things that will bring common sense to the table and that is if there is going to be political embarrassment for No 10 (with an election coming up as has been said earlier) or if Grayling thinks it will harm him personally - the latter boat may already have sailed after the LA U-turn.
Write to MPs telling them that it will cost them your vote. Write to boards (attend them - they're supposed to be open to public anyway) and tell them not to sign contract variation. Get local press involved. There's any number of inventive ways of embarrassing them into dropping the ridiculous parts of TR.
Coming at it from a practice point of view is not going to do it.
The practice point of view is not going to stop TR but unless good practice is promoted based on the spirit of probation as handed down to us certainly in the 70s - perhaps not so much nowadays - is there any point in saving probation - obviously the jobs of current practitioners are important, but it is more than that.
DeleteI agree with Anonymous at 09.50 , that politically what will change it is 'political embarrassment for No 10' or as I call it Cameron's Poll Tax.
This Government must be completly at it's wit's end....Parliament coming over all democratic, teachers threatening stike action, the u turn on legal aid and now a Select Cttee recommeding a 'shake up' of the Civil Service, the Beeb hierarchy back biting on the golden hand shakes, -on top of their on going attempts to batter the Proabtion Service...perhaps that's why Grayling and Cameron were unable to give Newsnight an interview last night. Well Mr Cameron is elsewhere, but there are 'phones in Russia and the Beeb do have some hi tech equipment. Any Soccer Am fans will recognise the Frankie Fryer school of advice giving - seeningly adopted by the Government.... "KEEP YOUR NUT DOWM'
ReplyDeleteRef the MoJ teleconference. It smacks of desparation. As a Probation Officer, I have spent 25 years recognising bulls*** when I hear it. It is a skill I cannot turn off because a civil servant tells me to. If it is Gray and has a trunk, it is an elephant.
ReplyDeleteIf Grayling wants to save face, he needs to turn it off now. If he doesn't, he will only have himself to blame. Frankly, his kind of politics is deeply disturbing.
I see Napo is planning 'lunchtime protests' on 19th September to coincide with the expected sale of the probation service on eBay – sorry, I meant to say the Official European Journal! Napo says, reassuringly, this is not industrial action, so members will have to use their own time – which is exactly what I thought they did during real industrial actions. Yes, this threat of TR is so serious that we have do do something really drastic: let's have a lunchtime protest...that will show Grayling what a rotter he is and that we are terribly angry with his naughtiness, but we must not frighten the horses.
ReplyDeleteROFL - ooohhh you are very naughty Netnipper!
DeleteWest yorks PT released a response to questions about the contract termination question. It stated categorically that there is no choice in the matter and trusts have been TOLD the contract termination clause will be added. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteCan you elaborate a bit on what this will mean - I think I've missed something. Ta.
DeleteThis seems to be concerning the notice period required to terminate the contract between the MoJ and each Trust. Each Trust Board have been told to sign consenting to variations of the contract, including a shorter notice period.
DeleteI'm no lawyer, but as far as I know variations of a contract can only be made by mutual consent, they cannot be imposed. We do not yet live in a totalitarian state and each Board cannot be ordered to do anything.
Saying you have no choice and there being no choice are two entirely different matters. I think the Trust would do well to take legal advice.
London have now taken the decision to make up the shortfall in staff by promoting some admin staff to pso's managing cases. No assessment, no requirement to undertake training. A taste of things to come I suspect
ReplyDeleteSuch things have happened before in my own Trust - astonishing nevertheless and yet another sad twist to the evolving omnishambles this is becoming. As you say - a portent of what is to come.
DeleteThe board of Gloucestershire trust apparently have told noms they will accept the proposed deadline.
ReplyDeleteI'm not at all surprised - but Joe Kuipers Chair of Avon and Somerset has made it clear each Trust Board has a choice in the matter.
DeleteGlos and ASPT are in the same contract package area, how's that going to work if ASPT don't capitulate?
DeleteCompletely in the spirit of an epic omnishambles.
Delete