Sifting and Sorting

As this dreadful 'sifting and sorting' process grinds on it's really beginning to have a corrosive effect on the whole profession. Many who have been allocated NPS seem to feel 'safe' whereas many destined for a CRC feel 'shafted'.  I was interested to see from a recent tweet that the outgoing CEO of Avon and Somerset PT say she would choose a CRC if she was a PO today. These comments graphically illustrate just some of the issues as the true scope of this epic omnishambles begins to evolve:-   

Am hearing local post-assignment stories after letters received. Tears for CRC staff, embarrassment for NPS due to empathy for the 'lost'. Worst are those in split roles who have seen half of their job gone with no idea what they will be doing with that 'extra' time. Feelings of having lost control of their career choices and having lost ground they made up over years. Also colleagues in busy teams have seen colleagues lost to the other side with no clarity on how they will manage the work.

******************

I don`t think it`s as simple as NPS safe, CRC vulnerable. I think both are vulnerable, NPS from severe budget cuts and CRC from rapacious cost-cutting for profit.

Strangely, for those of us with pre-1993 experience, the CRC role is more like being the sort of PO we signed up to be. NPS looks like Paul Boetang`s law enforcement writ large.

We remain in this together and feelings of guilt, helplessness and hopelessness don`t get us anywhere. Nor for that matter does sniping at senior managers who are probably most vulnerable of all. (Please have a think Pat from London).

We are being shafted and our personal and professional futures are cruelly uncertain. Resist positively and professionally, don`t shaft your clients, shaft the system, work only your hours, refuse inappropriate work (either way) and stuff and bit bureaucracy you safely can.

*********************
All sorts of machinations have gone on with people in the know in every trust etc being able to get themselves into positions ahead of the game to be sifted into NPS. It won't help them if they're not up to the job nor will it help them when NPS turns out to be the whipping boy

*********************
My letter tells me I have been sifted to the role of 'Probation Officer' within the CRC. No job description forthcoming, no acknowledgement of my grievance or request for a job description, and no guidance as to what role boundaries there might be. 

I'm already feeling enthused by no more oasys, no more delius, no more mappa, no more breaches - Skools Out Forever!

Perhaps I could trawl the various transcripts of HoC and HoL debates and distill my own job description from the words of Grayling and Wright? Perhaps NOMS HR are doing that as I write this?

****************

I work within a Probation Trust IT team, so was interested to read this line:

'Over a two month period from April we will also make the full transition to new IT and support systems in areas like HR'.

The training and last minute tweaking of nDelius took 7 weeks or so, and needed planning prior to that. Despite considerable effort, this MoJ driven creation arguably remains a system that has never adequately met the needs of those who use it (and have to support it day in, day out, I might add). There are many reasons for its inadequacies but a one size fits all approach designed by people who won't use it and don't know how probation works away from NOMS HQ is a big one. All the signs are the exact same mistakes will be repeated to pile on disruption at the most unwelcome of times.

However this time around, with local Corporate support arrangements moving over to the CRC, how the NPS will quickly and competently implement new IT arrangements that meet local need, is anyones guess. I believe the strong relationships within trusts and their willingness to 'get on with it' has covered up the folly of this 'NOMS knows best' ethos for years. Come June 1st, the mask will be gone. The only positive of this may be that when common sense prevails and this mess has been cleared up, Grayling and his supporting act like the comical Mr Spurr will be consigned to the dustbin.

************************

I don't think either are safe. As for the IT and HR arrangements being sorted in the 2 months from 1st April, they are living in cloud cuckoo land (unless behind the scenes there has been planning for a while, and by that I mean, prior to February last year) as I work for a merged Trust and it took over 3 years to merge the HR, IT and payroll. So far as staff allocations, it is so random. Whatever the numbers, there are a huge number of totally disillusioned practitioners of all grades out there and the general feeling is despondence.

*****************

You would have hoped that NOMS would have learnt something from the experiences of merged Trusts, failed IT systems (remember C-NOMIS?) and how complicated was the launching of E Oasys and N-Delius with training staff over a much longer period of time .I say hoped.......perhaps NOMS staff need to go on a GO programme as they clearly do not learn by experience!!!

Colleagues in other posts are right in saying that the old JDs will follow them into the new organisations - can I urge everyone, regardless of post or grade to download, print off and keep your current JDs. If there is anything in it that does not fit your current post raise it with your line manager NOW - keep the email trail and copies of your appraisals and any other vital documents in a safe place as print-offs.

*******************

You can drag a probation practitioner to water but you can't make them drink. Offer no advice, no guidance, no solutions, no remedies to Grayling, Wright, Spurr and NOMS. Let the full magnitude of Graylings TR omnishambles unfold. Plus get your whistle blowing ready I'm sure there will be plenty of malpractice advanced by some keen to please their new masters, and dodging dealings advanced by private companies just like G4S Serco et al have been found out. Charities, not for profit organisation will most likely not only get their fingers burnt by the corporate big boys but also their reputations.

I notice that tailgunner has had something to say about it all over on the Napo forum:- 

Who will do what on 1st April?
The whole process of assignment will inevitably be unsettling and upsetting for most if not all who experience it. If we were in a relatively straightforward TUPE type transfer from one organisation to another, people would have been transferred doing what they're were doing on the last day of the old organisation to the first day of the new. That would have felt bad enough for all sorts of reasons but this is worse as we split one organisation into two in a way that we all knew made no sense from day one.

The assignment model, as imposed, was ill-thought through because insufficient time was allowed to make it as fair as possible - though its doubtful it would ever have been something that felt fair to all.

However a number of unintended consequences of what was imposed are beginning to emerge. The position of individuals in split roles, such as yourself, and many programmes staff is one such. Another is that the NPS has been left with almost no trainers on its books because they've nearly all been assigned to CRCs. This will cause huge problems as the NPS seeks to establish a credible professional skills training model.
 
These unintended consequences and perhaps others besides may well need to be addressed. Equally, there may be a degree of mismatch, not yet fully apparent, where merging Trusts have carried out their assignment exercises independantly rather than collaboratively. CRCs comprising two, three or four merging Trusts will need balanced workforces that reflect the combined requirement for staff in the various roles. I may be doing them a disservice but such collaboration is not immediately apparent - at least not from where I sit.

Finally, tailgunner again on that issue of a possible conflict of interest in NPS:-

Officer of the Court and Civil Servant?
This is the official NOMS response as to why there is no conflict between the two roles. Feel free to post any comments on this explanation

The general principle in relation to this issue is the fact that all civil servants are bound by the Civil Service Code. Relevant duties set out in the Code include:

* Comply with the law and uphold the administration of justice.
* Set out facts and relevant issues truthfully, and correct any errors as soon as possible.
* Must not deceive or knowingly mislead Ministers, Parliament or others.
* provide information and advice, including advice to Ministers, on the basis of the evidence, and accurately present the options and facts
* Must not ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions.
* must not act in a way that is determined by party political considerations

These duties mean that civil servants who provide evidence in the court are prohibited from advising or providing information to court in a biased manner or in contravention of their statutory duties. This is because if they did so they would not be upholding the administration of justice, and could be compromising their political impartiality. Additionally, anyone giving evidence is court is bound by oath. Furthermore, Ministers cannot require civil servants to breach the Civil Service Code. Hypothetically, if a Minister asked a civil servant to advise a court or present evidence in a biased way then this would breach the ministerial code. Paragraph 5.1 of the code provides:

Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the civil service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code and the requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

Therefore, both the Civil Service Code and the Ministerial Code provide protection for civil servants against the undue influence of Ministers when appearing before court.
Currently there are many civil servants who either appear before courts or who exercise a quasi-judicial function and they do this without having any such conflict. Two key examples are:

* HMCTS legal advisors are civil servants who are responsible to the MoJ. They are able to provide independent advice to the courts.
* The Crown Prosecutors in the Crown Prosecution Service are civil servants. The CPS reports to the Attorney General who is accountable in Parliament for the CPS. Crown Prosecutors make decisions on whether a prosecution is in the public interest independently of the Attorney General.

All of this is reinforced by section 4 of the OMA 2007, which provides that the function of "giving assistance to any court in determining the appropriate sentence to pass, or making any other decision in respect of a person charged with or convicted of an offence" is a 'restricted probation provision' which must be carried out by a Probation Trust or other public body. The intention behind section 4 is that advice to court should not be influenced by commercial or other inappropriate interests. Civil servants are by definition part of a public body and therefore able to discharge this function. It would be contrary to section 4 for Ministers to be able to influence how sentencing advice is presented to court.