Obviously if this amendment could attract the support of MP's who have been persuaded that the plans for TR are completely untested, potentially dangerous and risk destroying a well-performing public service, it would force the government to reconsider their plans.“Any restructuring of the Probation Service in England and Wales, which will involve multiple providers of such services, must first be the subject of an independently evaluated pilot scheme prior to the introduction of tendering on a national level.”
Clearly the Liberal Democrats are absolutely key in being able to force this very sensible rethink and therefore we must, as a matter of urgency, make e-mail contact with all LibDem Members of Parliament before next Tuesday.
As an aside, if they require any further evidence as to why this is an extremely sensible course of action, it is supplied by David Hurst and his attempt to flush out details of the posts in both CRC's and the NPS from the MoJ by means of a Freedom of Information request:-
"Please could you inform me of the two roles assigned to a Probation Officer working for the proposed CRC or NPO as part of the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms? What are the job descriptions of each? Who will they be accountable to? Where will they be located? How many offenders will each role supervise? What will be the breakdown in risk/Tiers 1,2,3 or 4? How will risk assessments be reviewed and subsequently how will those offenders be reallocated between the roles? Without this information it will be impossible to make an informed and appropriate decision on selecting a role as they are to date unspecified."
It got this response from the MoJ:-
Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request, and for any inconvenience this may have caused. Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) does not hold the information that you have requested. To establish whether the information was held I conducted a thorough search, and made enquires with the following areas: Rehabilitation Programme and the National Offender Management Human Resources Team.
If the information was held by MoJ it would have to be held by the above mentioned business areas. It may help if I clarify that the information being requested is not held by MoJ because there is no legal or business requirement for MoJ to do so.
Please be advised that the FOIA does not oblige a public authority to create information to answer a request if the requested information is not held. It does not place a duty upon public authorities to answer a question unless recorded information exists. The FOIA duty is to only provide the recorded information held.
By way of explanation, NOMS does not now and will not in future hold central job descriptions for probation officer roles in the NPS or CRCs, but does have national benchmark profiles, which have not been changed for the new organisations. All job descriptions are produced, evaluated and agreed by individual Trusts locally and any changes to jobs for the new organisations will be produced under due process in due course. There are no planned changes to required levels of training and qualifications for probation officer grades within the NPS and CRC's.
Now this is very similar to an earlier FOI request dated 24th October 2013 by another officer:-
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Like many others I am soon to receive a letter from my current
employer asking me to chose who I prefer to work for as of April
2014; with a very short due date. Unfortunately, there seems to be
little known about the two options, although I am assured the MOJ
have a clear understanding, and therefore I would ask for
clarification as to exactly what the Probation Officer's role/job
description will be within the NPS and the CRC's; including terms
and conditions of service. A swift response would be helpful, so as
to make an informed choice.
Yours faithfully,
It didn't get a response:-
Dear Ministry of Justice,
You should have responded to my original FOI by 21.11.2013 - what's
the problem?
Yours faithfully,
The point is this - TR is an omnishambles of epic proportions, has already cost £125 million, is completely untested, is still being designed on the back of fag packets, has no support from professionals and academics and even potential bidders have no idea what they will be bidding for.
This madness can be stopped now!
We just need to convince those Liberal Democrats.
Too say it is a shambles is an understatement. Read in NAPO email that MoJ does not know if CRC and NPS are able to work in the same building during the interim period. I'm wondering will there be CRC buildings and NPS buildings then?
ReplyDeleteWhilst there does not appear to be job descriptions for CRC or NPS, what is apparent is that CRC are not involved in writing parole reports or Pre-Sentence Reports. It is clear that this fuck up won't have been sorted out by 01.04.14. What will happen is you will get disillusioned staff giving less of a damn about the transition process and there are also likely to be getting CRC POs asking when they can stop writing PSRs, parole reports and seeing high risk cases. I have been assigned to NPS and you know what I don't blame CRC POs for demanding that the above stated tasks are taken from them. If I no longer give a damn, I dread to think what CRC POs are thinking. In this line of work it is a very dangerous situation to have a staff not caring about what happens.
As a NPS PO I am now worrying what the consequences are for me in NPS, I am waiting for the sting in the tail.
The Young Turks are covering the unfolding mess of profit prisons in America - includes the wonderful company GEO who I think are bidding for probation work..?!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1slcQjrpx9g
Sadiq Khan and Failing Grayling will be appearing on Any Questions on Radio 4 at 8pm.
ReplyDeleteIf you didn't catch it tonight listen to the rerun tomorrow lunchtime. Well worth a listen. Debs Borgen (PO based in London) put a brilliant question about the privatisation of Probation and when given the right of reply incisively challenged CG on the accuracy of what he was saying and the morality of his decisions. CG sounded nervous when challenged, Sadiq Khan sharpened up his response as time went on in the debate but was quite bleathery to start with. The UKip chap wasn't too bad, but still the overall impression (as ever) is that outside our field no-one has a clue what we do. And therein lies our biggest hurdle to overcome.
DeleteDeb
So its hats off to the probation officer on AQs; boo's to Sadiq Khan for missing the main chance, too busy being chummy with Chris; and hisses to the slimy Grayling who hasn't got a clue about the damage he's inflicting upon us all. In fact thats the scary bit of insight that was brought home to me - he has no idea, and as such doesn't give a damn. His response is a programmed mantra about under 6 month prisoners and the £46 in their pocket.
ReplyDeleteOur cowardy custard Trust now send out emails about role assignment after closing time on Fridays these days, leaving a joyous present steaming in the inbox. Once upon an Enid Blyton time it was dogshit in a paperbag, set light to it, ring the doorbell and run away.
Pure South Sea Bubble: "carrying on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is". Nothing really changes.
ReplyDeleteA great historical parallel and quote. As you imply, nothing new under the sun - just another Ponzi Scheme - hang on that's a blog post title............
DeleteThere are a mountain of problems that have been invented due to this proposed spliting of the service I have worked in for 37 years.I am an SPO with a wide range of experience. On the basis of doing a job I was directed to by our CO for a whole 6 days I was automatically assigned to the CRC.A company that does not exist, no job description and no notion of where I
ReplyDeletemight be asked to work across what will be a huge area.Grayling seems to think that co-location is the answer to everything.Let us look at a likely instance.A high risk tier 4 ofender kicking of in the waiting room.The co
located NPS team of 5 has one person on leave, one of sick and the other three otherwise engaged.Who do you ask to deal with the guy in the waiting room?.The likely response of any private company will be "well you are not covered to deal with such individuals" and it will be your own fault if things amis in any way.The constraints that will be imposed on CRC staff have not really be considered but will affect services in a profound way.
I heard Grayling on Any Questions . His response to any TR issues is to just repeat the same statements . Colleagues should take the chance to ring in for Any Answers to rebutt the nonsense he came out with and clarify the misunderstandings of the likes of Sarah Teather
Beware this post has swear words and anger is not aimed at Anonymous 21:41 but at TR.
DeletePretty scary. But I am not prepared to do things to help the other company. For example if I am in NPS I will not do anything to help CRC and vice versa. I am normally a team player but I disagree with this TR shit and I am not prepared to bust my arse just to make this Tory invention easy for Grayling and his cronies.
So in that scenario if I was in CRC excuse my French, but my response if I was asked to see tier 4 high risk offender would be "fuck off, I am part of the inferior company, its not my job. Get someone else to do it". In reality I would not say that to a SPO as I respect the SPOs that I have but if I was a CRC staff member in that scenario I would refuse to help in a polite way. Grayling can't have his cake and eat it.
I understand your response and it highlights what is being done to the service as a whole.Not an issue at the moment but soon will be...........along with loads of other stuff we take for granted at the moment.
DeleteI absolutely 100% agree with the above sentiment. I am a PO with 14 years experience who has opted for the CRC as the best of a bad choice for a number of ideological and personal reasons and I am very clear about what it means to have a contractual obligation and the limits of role responsibility. There are issues of employment liability insurance and the risk of being sued if you work beyond your brief . PO 's are all aware (for example) that we cant give legal advice (as per a solicitor) as we're not insured to do so, and so I've no intention of writing PSRs or facing a parole board with judgments I am no longer being paid to make - barristers will have a field day challenging decisions their client didn't like on these grounds. I'm quite clear in my own mind that there can be no such thing as 'business as usual' post April 1st whilst the new systems limp into place.
DeleteDeb
Can I ask why you chose CRC? There is nothing wrong with your choice just interested to hear a different point of view as most people opted for NPS
DeleteAt a feeling I raised a similar point to 21:41. Currently an OM with concerns about raised risk of person A would cross the floor with file to SPO office, discuss action plan, implement. Or seek advice from coIleagues. In the brave new world OM would presumably (who knows?) fill in a form repeat info ad naseum see a manager, manager contacts another manager. Manager not available? call not returned? Email? Fax? No response? Send file? Courier file? File lost? Inadvertently returned? Transfer form returned section twenty something incomplete? Meanwhile what is person A doing? Grayling revealed his true colours admist his vacuous comments last night "well they would say that wouldn't they" regarding NAPOs risk warnings. NAPO obviously just an insignifiant bunch of scaremongering lefties spoiling his party the misguided fools. He has no idea and seems to have others who should know better fawning at his feet.
DeleteI was auto assigned to NPS and see myself as unlucky because I don't want to work in a prison and it is very likely that is where most of us will end up, followed by redundancy. I think the scenario outlined by anon at 06:07 is plausible. I will not work outside of my remit ( whatever that turns out to be). And what about CRC ? Where did the suggestion that a PO will not write PSRs ( SDRs in new speak) come from ? The majority of PSRs are written on medium and low risk offenders although in my area PSO grade staff write FDRs to remove the need for so many PSRs. If it wasn't so tragic this whole mess would be hilarious. I suggest any clever heads of our university business schools start looking at TR immediately as there is so much to learn about how NOT to implement a change process or achieve intended outcome.
ReplyDeleteI myself can't see most POs ending up in prison. As who will write the PSRs and FDRs that the court will be requesting on low, medium and high risk cases. As this is what the NPS role will include writing reports for the court on any level of risk cases. As the CRC will have not be any involvement in writing pre-sentence reports for courts.
DeleteI heard Chris Grayling's disparaging remarks about NAPO with disgust really, this is a professional association and trade union similar to the status of the BMA, but you would never hear him criticise them would you? I am a disabled member and had some serious issues with my trust. My napo rep ( a full time PO) has been wonderful and has even given me her time during evenings and weekends. I know she has been treated really badly by our Trust as someone complained about her union work. Let's just take a moment to reflect on what NAPO does for us, yes we pay our dues, but some napo officers really do work hard to support us with the day to day issues.
ReplyDeletePost April 2014...staff in the CRC and NPS should only follow the protocols for communication between the two organisations (as we all know that they are rudimentary at best and unworkable and given the vast areas that SPOs are likely to have to cover staff likely to be encouraged to take short cuts) and not try to make the whole damn car crash work, in that way it is likely that the MOJ will be hoist by thier own petard......
ReplyDeleteOh I will, I will definitely follow the protocols to the letter, I can be very pedantic when I want to be.
Deleteme too, you want us to deliver your plan Mr Grayling ? I will to the letter and full stop!
DeleteIn response to Anon 10th Jan 23.14 I opted for the CRC as I want nothing to do with lie detectors in any way shape or form whether talking about them in reports, referring people, discussing at parole boards etc etc. I am so opposed to their use at any and every level and am really alarmed by the Probation Instruction issued about them which seems (to me) to already be laying the way to a widening of the criteria for their use (why does Ndelius have a button entitled Mandatory Use of Polygraph when at present it is supposed to be voluntary?). Only a small part of the NPS work you might say but in a much reduced staffing group with only HR cases it will be difficult to avoid, I reckoned and so I made my choice.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anon 11th Jan 6.53 and PSRs I have read in one of the recently released operational papers on TR that all report writing (parole, court) is to be function of the NPS. Dont have it in front of me but it was quite a categorical statement that CRC staff will not carry out this function. Of course am happy to be corrected if I've got it wrong.
Deb
I have also opted for the CRC - I say "opted for"; I haven't received my letter detailing my allocation yet, but on the basis of discussions with other staff I know that most in my area made their Expression of Interest for the NPS. So I'm presuming that the CRC will hardly be over-subscribed and therefore I shouldn't have to go through any sifting process. Mind you, given the way this whole omnishambles has gone so far, I could hardly be surprised if I ended up allocated to the NPS.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I had a series of reasons for this choice, from the personal to the petulant. At a personal level, I've been formally located in posts in high risk teams for at least 4 out of my 10 years since qualification, and even when in generic teams have held a high proportion of high risk cases. I know from experience that if I have to hold solely high risk cases again (and let's face it, the NPS caseloads will also be higher than in a current public protection team), then I'll burn out. My health and my family is much more important to me than this job, quite frankly.
If I'm not holding 50+ high risk cases, then I'll be writing non-stop PSRs and doing risk assessments for CRC cases, because the MoJ knows it can't trust private companies not to act in their own interests. At best I'll meet those clients once, probably for 30 minutes or less given the scale of things, and it won't be long before I'll be handed files and told to do assessments based on paperwork alone. I'm not interested in that work - that's not why I joined the service, and I think it's dangerous, so I'll have no part of it.
And my petulant reason? I've got a lot of experience of working with high risk cases, some of whom have been high profile locally and nationally. I don't think it would be arrogant to consider myself to be one of the "highly professional" "experts" that Grayling wants in his NPS. Well he can take a long jump off a short cliff. You want a market in criminal justice, with increased choice in offender provision? Well I'm making my choice. I will not give my skills to a Ministry that can shaft 18,000 staff members, thousands of their families, a quarter of a million clients, and millions of members of the public in England & Wales, any longer. In fact, petulant may not be the right word - I'm livid.
I'm with you on all you say, Anon. I think the risk of burn out amongst NPS will be high, and I also baulked at the idea of writing assessments or even worse RECALLING to prison people I had never met. I too regard myself as in the 'highly skilled' camp having held predominantly high risk cases for many years, and so also get quite a bit of satisfaction from making my considerable skills unavailable to CG in the new world order.
DeleteWe may have little power, but we wield it where we can........
Deb
Re the polygraph argument......they're currently realising that this can work in two ways.....sure sex offenders in the community will be tested and when 'found' to be lying could even be recalled to custody....ok so can prisoners protesting their innocence use the same system to demonstrate to a parole board that their convictions are unsafe......NOT A CHANCE.....they're now realising that a host of legal challenges are lining up at the starting line.....you think that the reason that this system has been delayed for 6 months is a matter of finance.....no its the slow dawning of what's sauce for the goose.......
ReplyDeleteI too as Anonymous11 January 2014 11:01 and Anonymous11 January 2014 12:38 have opted for CRC. I have over 14 years experience including 4 years in a high risk team. On the sifting basis I am certain due to my high risk caseload on 10.11.13 to have been assigned to the NPS.I also don't think it would be arrogant to consider myself to be one of the "highly professional" "experts" that Grayling wants in his NPS. It was my experience of working previously in a high risk team taken with the narrowing job profile within the NPS that prompted my choice. The way we have all been treated by NOMS and Grayling gives me no confidence in how the NPS will be run. I am of the opinion that unfortunately many of our colleagues who join the NPS are going to burn out. I put my health, family and happiness above the job. I believe that when this omnishambles comes to past the apocalypse fall out is going to be Mr Graylings political epitaph.
ReplyDelete