News, Advice and Humble Pie

I'll kick this off with the astounding news from both HM Chief Inspector's of Prisons and Probation that prisons are largely failing in rehabilitating offenders. For some reason I cannot find the actual report online, so we have to rely on news reports, such as this from the BBC:-

Efforts to stop prisoners reoffending are "not working" and should be the subject of a major policy review, two senior inspectors have said.

A joint report by the chief inspectors of prisons and probation said the lack of progress on offender management in England and Wales was "concerning". It said its findings from 21 prisons cast doubt on the Prison Service's ability to deliver required standards.

The inspectors recommended a fundamental review by the chief executive of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which commissions and provides services for the Ministry of Justice. Chief Inspector of Probation Liz Calderbank and Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick said they had reached the reluctant conclusion that offender management in prisons was failing.

"The majority of prison staff do not understand it and the community-based offender managers, who largely do, have neither the involvement in the process or the internal knowledge of the institutions to make it work," they said.

"It is more complex than many prisoners need and more costly to run than most prisons can afford."

Offender management involves the assessment, planning and implementation of work with offenders in the community or in custody to address the likelihood of them reoffending and the risk of harm they pose to the public. Community-based offender managers and staff in prison offender management units have joint responsibility for work with prisoners to address the attitudes, behaviour and lifestyle behind their offending.

The Prison Service is required to make changes under the government's Transforming Rehabilitation strategy, which includes an extension of "through the gate" help where most offenders should be supported by one service provider as they move from prison to the outside world. But the inspectors said they doubted whether the Prison Service could meet these and other NOMS expectations.

"We therefore believe that the current position is no longer sustainable and should be subject to fundamental review," they said

The report, which covers the period from April 2012 to March 2013, is the third of its kind. The inspectors said they were "disappointed" that recommendations published in the previous report in July 2012 had resulted in "little progress".

The new report said "outcomes for prisoners" in terms of rehabilitation and resettlement were no better than one year ago.

As well as calling for the major review, the report made recommendations for immediate action to improve the situation "until more far-reaching changes can be made". It noted that offender supervisors in prisons lacked "guidance and supervision about what their role should entail", and called on NOMS to produce a "practice guide" for them.

It said offender management was "particularly poor" at two prisons accommodating foreign prisoners, and said NOMS should ensure foreign nationals were managed to "address their risk of harm and likelihood of reoffending". The report also suggested NOMS should work with prisons and offender management services on improvements - such as all prisoners having access to an "adequate range of programmes to address their offending behaviour".

Pat Waterman, Chair of Greater London Branch of Napo, has burst into florrid print once more, but readers of a nervous disposition should note that I have taken the liberty of reducing the colour and font sizes a little, but I hope it still conveys the author's emphasis:-

TO: NAPO MEMBERS

Is Everybody Happy? 

In her blog this week, whilst acknowledging that some staff will be taking out a grievance, Heather Munro writes that she has met others who say “they just want this part of the process to be over”. 

I do hope that none of the members of Greater London Branch are saying that. 

If you are then I say be careful what you wish for. 

The national negotiations broke down because the trade unions were unable to secure adequate protection for their members. But, rather than attempt to continue the negotiations, the MOJ told trusts to go ahead anyway and start splitting and sifting their staff. 

LPT have done exactly what they were told to do and sent you all letters which either advise you of your assignment in the proposed new structure or invite you to express a preference. 

You will all be aware that the advice of your trade union is to register a grievance. However, despite comprehensive advice from your national officers and officials, and the example of the grievance already lodged by your national chair, Tom Rendon, I know that many of you are finding this a daunting and confusing task. So much so that I fear that some of you are feeling stymied into inaction. 

So here is my advice. 

• Don’t feel that you have to submit each and every concern as outlined in the national guidance. Your grievance could consist of a single question. Don’t be put off. This is not a complex procedure.

• It is important that you personalise your grievance. Make it about what concerns you. It is important that you use your own words. Do not just cut and paste the suggestions contained in the national guidance. If you do then there is a danger that LPT will chose to regard this as a collective grievance.

• It is important that you make the grievance about the Staff Transfer Process that LPT (your employers) have decided to implement. Actual assignments have been determined by the MOJ but your grievance is against the process of transfer.  

• Refrain from using this as an opportunity to rail against the government’s TR plans as a whole.  If you do then your grievance could  be dismissed as being outside of the scope of the policy.

• The basis of your grievance is lack of any clarity about the future. It is still not certain what the NPS or CRC will actually do; what your jobs will be; where you will be doing them; what will be your terms and conditions and, for those who are appointed or assigned to the CRC, who you will be working for. 

• You should frame your grievance in such a way as to indicate what outcome you are looking for or how resolution could be achieved. Try and be specific about the information you require to enable you to either make an informed choice or accept an assignment.

• So use the national guidance but use it wisely. Do not feel that you have to put everything in and try to put your grievance in your own words.

• I suggest that you closely follow the national guidance (suitably amended) with regard to the opening paragraph of your grievance and with regard to the two concluding paragraphs which are designed to protect your legal rights.

I am aware that some members are feeling that if they are invited to express a preference, and do not  do so, they will be disadvantaged and treated less fairly. 

Just remember that even Heather Munro said this process was not fair but still she is implementing it. 

Now that’s something to be aggrieved about. 

Pat Waterman
Chair

Finally, I'm grateful to a reader for bringing the following nugget of sweet news to my attention concerning my favourite blogger, Sir Stephen Bubb:-

Acevo chief executive Sir Stephen Bubb was forced to eat his words from a recent blog about right-wing politicians that "hate" campaigning charities after Conservative MP Robert Halfon described it as offensive and outrageous.

Sir Stephen wrote the blog shortly after The Daily Telegraph published an article in the summer which criticised various international aid charities for paying their chief executives more than £100,000 while their income was declining.

He wrote that many MPs on the Right "hated charities who campaign and particularly dislike international charities that have been so effective at raising the concerns of the world's poor".

Halfon seized his opportunity to publicly harangue Sir Stephen over the blog at a meeting of the Public Administration Select Committee this morning, where the Acevo chief was giving evidence on the subject of charity executive pay.

He said he considered himself  to be "on the Right" and listed a number of international causes that he has personally been involved with, before stating that he found Sir Stephen's remarks "quite offensive" and "stereotypical".

He then went on: "It's the equivalent of me saying that you, Sir Stephen, are a quangocrat aristocrat that lives off the taxpayer and leeches off the charitable sector and has his birthday parties at the expense of the taxpayer and the charity sector - but I wouldn't say that because I don't believe in stereotyping.

"Wouldn't you agree that your comments were wrong and outrageous?"

In response, Sir Stephen said that Halfon had already raised this with him privately and that he agreed his comments were ill-advised. "That was stereotyping and a generalisation which I regret," he said.