Friday, 28 February 2014

Latest From Napo 14

Here's the latest e-mail sent this morning to all Napo members:-

Dear All
 
Grievances and Appeals
Technically, you should not use a grievance as part of a political campaign because it relates to an individual’s experience at work.  However, if lots of people do this en masse and it creates a stir, then it’s an extremely useful by-product.  That’s what we achieved and it drew attention to the fact that lots of people were unhappy.  The BBC ran with this as a national story.  If any bidder was rubbing their hands together and thinking “Mmmm, Probation, what a lovely compliant workforce” we have given them cause to think again.  We will continue to apply industrial pressure and members, on an individual basis, can play a big part in this.  Centrally we don’t have the resources to cover all 35 branches with individual support and so the leadership and support from branch executives to members has made, and is making, all of this possible.  Sticking your head above the parapet can make us feel wary at work and it takes courage.  What you’ve shown is that when loads of people do this together we achieve strength and confidence- the very essence of a trade union.


The Bidders
The profit-obsessed are frightened by two things: strong union membership and a “lively” staff group.  Any whiff of unquestioning compliance or lack of unionism has the privateer salivating uncontrollably.  If that just made you shudder- don’t let it happen.  Keep recruiting into Napo and watch out for further industrial action announcements.   The bidders are getting very suspicious of the MoJ’s antics.  There are vast and complex rules relating to the competition process but the essential ingredient is simple: the MoJ wants to sell “probation”.  The bidders want to know what they are buying but the MoJ doesn’t know what they are selling.  Here’s a simplified version of the “high level” talks:


MoJ: “Would you like to buy a CRC?”
Bidder: “I’m interested.  Can you give me a bit more information?”
MoJ: “Like what?”
Bidder: “Can I make a profit?”
MoJ: “Yes, definitely! We have a PbR mechanism but we can’t quite work it out.”
Bidder: “Oh.  Will we have to supervise the under 12 months?  It sounds quite expensive.”
MoJ: “Not sure because it’s not law yet.  They’ll all have £46 on release though!”
Bidder: “Ok. Erm, what about the staff?
MoJ: “What about them?”
Bidder: “Will we have freedom to massively cut numbers and slash wages?”
MoJ: “Well, there’s quite long continuous service and other binding agreements with the unions and they sometimes get a bit shirty…..”
Bidders: “Don’t call us, we’ll call you….”
 
And so on.  Even the civil servants walk around shaking their heads in disbelief at the madness of it.  The staff split has been a horrendous experience but the fight isn’t over by a long way. 


Compliance
You will be asked to undertake all sorts of tasks to assist the government with its insane timetable- they can’t do it without you.  We are still working to contracted hours (not an exact science in our business) and maintaining service delivery (with a staff shortage) in a massive organisational change will not happen if all members just keep to their jobs.  Temps are being induced with massive payments, people are being offered overtime for stationary audits, courts are only kept running through sessional reports.  Literally everything is hanging by a thread and it won’t take much more stress for it to collapse.  After the split, we are still all in the public sector and, until the sell-off, life will be hard but the service can still be rescued.  As the shadow operations crank into gear there will be massive risks to service delivery which could be unknown to us at present.  If you cannot allocate cases or court reports, if people are being constantly “loaned” from NPS to CRC and back again because of the ludicrous staff split, if it takes you additional hours to undertake simple tasks, if partnership work suffers you must let us know because this is exactly what MPs are waiting for.  They need the evidence to hold the minister to account.


CRC or NPS?
To laugh is real gallows humour but many trusts are now undertaking a secondary expression of interest exercise.  Why?  Because people are in the wrong places!  How surprising.  The staff split was never fit for purpose and never agreed, partly because it would cause this amount of chaos.  Senior managers are also tearing their hair out.  Although the secondary EoI is an attempt to prevent staff being overburdened, it just highlights why this whole sorry thing shouldn’t be happening in the first place.  In the early days some were saying that the NPS was a ‘superior’ organisation, we now hear that the thought of micro management by NOMS is driving people into the CRC.  Rock and a hard place indeed. 
 
Meanwhile we look forward to seeing as many of you as possible in Birmingham next week
   
 
Tom Rendon               Ian Lawrence
National Chair             General Secretary

33 comments:

  1. http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/news/when-probation-officers-become-debt-collectors

    Although I would rather count the hairs in a hairy dog's arse than be in the NPS (Civil service code - fuck off, treble the amount of OASys and PSRs - fuck off, more targets than we have ever had in the history of the service - fuck off) - the future of the privately run probation service has this to look forward to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It may seem counter-intuitive that a probation officer would choose a CRC over NPS but it will make sense to those who have an eye open for redundancy terms. In the last few years Trusts have been offering voluntary redundancy to POs and so numbers have fallen. Therefore, I think it will be harder to secure redundancy in the NPS than CRCs. What we saw when SERCO took over in London was additional redundancies of about 100 even before the ink had dried on the Recognition Agreement. The Unions, as they noted at the time, were 'powerless' to resist this further round of job cuts. The same will surely occur with the CRCs and as they can offload voluntary redundancies onto the the government's expense sheet, what will hold them back from reducing their complement of POs, who may be looked up as not fit for purpose in the cheap and cheerful CRCs. Napo heralds the deal on continuity of service as though this will be some sort of deterrent to CRCs. Not a bit, all a business has to do is 'restructure' and the goalposts move.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Chaotic caseloads plus a chaotic system with no control being given to the CRCs. The national caseload reducing year on year since 2008. Police and Courts increasingly diverting low risk offenders to cautions and discharges. Fewer younger offenders coming through the Youth Justice System into Probation caseloads. Staff who have removed all good will and are up for a fight - it will only take a few of us to get bolshy and it will implode.If privateers cut too fast before they understand the first thing about this extremely complex 'business' - it will implode. Private companies would be mad to apply to have these chaotic contracts on their accounts.

    I heard that the one to one meetings between mutuals and MOJ are being hamstrung because the MOJ officials just look blankly when asked questions about the complex technicalities of Probation work because, putting it simply, they don't have any understanding of how multi-faceted and complex it is. People on multiple Orders, orders ending early or delayed by breaches, UALs, people popping up all over the country, short prison sentences that currently last a few days or weeks now taking years to complete or never ending because of the multiple breaches and recalls (why would a private company what those for God sake???). I could go on. Why would any private enterprise want this work? I don't get it. Probation has been the filler in between the cracks ever since the start of the welfare state - it's chaotic by nature (especially the medium and low risk cases), its needs patience and agency stability. Once you lose control of the admin you are utterly, utterly lost amongst a caseload who would merrily run circles around you. I have also heard many of our service users say that private companies can f*** off if they think they are going to make a profit from them. They are not in the mood to be picked over and are ready to f*** with anyone who doesn't show them respect - after all, they do know the system pretty well themselves!! It only works with their good will and that of the staff. That's what the MOJ don't understand when trying to make rational contracts from this. Remember also, Probation offices don't have security guards - we work with service users, not to make profit from them. The private companies might decide that they need security once it all starts to kick off. The hassle usually comes from the chaotic medium risk cases, not the high risk who are generally compliant. When the panic alarms sound in a CRC interview room, do we respond? Look at Atos. Look at Serco in London. Look at G4S at HMP Oakwood. Look at your bottom line. It makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Anon at 16.29 writes - it really does not make sense that any sensible profit hungry business would want to have anything to do with a CRC especially when they will come under the sort of scrutiny and publicity that now has ATOS fleeing from DWP & Serco from CP in London.

      However, I cannot work out what the acronym UAL means - please advise - it is not in Jim's list.

      Delete
    2. Unlawfully at large. Normally following them being advised they are getting recalled and them taking to their toes! However, Grayling has now put in place plans to criminalise this (hey, lets makes laws about everything; the cock) so if you go UAL following recall you will also get charged with this once you are back inside.

      Delete
    3. @ anon 16:29. You are right in what you wrote. Many of the offenders are not as portrayed on Jeremy Kyle and the like, but are astute, savvy and articulate and are more than capable of running rings round those who underestimate them (I speak from experience). They know how the system works, how to play it and break it. I can imagine the scene now when you have some Civil Serpent from NOMS and/or some manager from Crapita just pondering how on earth they just got their ass took down to China Town by people who are supposed to be nothing more than knuckle dragging, drug taking, indolent and ignorant villains.

      I just wish I could be there to see it :)

      Delete
    4. Thanks both - when I first heard about PbR being paid only when no further convictions occurred for only (why) 12 months - (it used to be 2years as the measure) - I realise that aspect will be a complete shambles.

      Does the period start from the day of release - which is a moving feature - depending on - bank holidays - and adjudications (sometimes)?

      How will it take account of convictions not dealt with in court chronologically and what about recalls for technical matters - like missing an appointment but not reoffending - that is just for starters - who is going to keep count - who is going to audit the counters - and on and on and on - omnishambles will be an understatement - I thought serious attention to detail will stop it dead - ages ago - but no - what have those who MOJ at least speak with such as those appointed as CRC & NPS bosses and NOMs personnel - been saying - those who have serious front-line experience MUST know - will they bear some responsibility when the chaos engulfs - it seems far worse than the CAFCASS or Child Support Payments shamble - and perhaps as bad as the fit for work tests (which may involve more people)

      I read a news report today of a DWP Minister apologising in House of Commons for a woman in a coma (which had been notified to DWP & their private operator) being sent a letter directing her to a training course - the previous threat of which was thought to have contributed to a deterioration in her mental health condition - that had lasted 20 something years & resulted in a compulsory hospital admission - where she had had a heart attack which was involved in the onset of the coma that has lasted three months

      This Government is quite willing for those on the end of their policies to become "collateral damage" - is perhaps an appropriate description.

      They will not be bothered by a few thousand angry probation workers and extra crimes

      Delete
    5. Thats right. They don't care and our own senior management have played Emperors New Clothes with it and so are morally culpable to. The Neuremberg defence was never convincing.

      Delete
    6. I've got my ticket out1 March 2014 at 14:16

      UALs aren't just licence cases. I've had many Community Order cases who have just disappeared, only to pop up in Hove, Scotland or wherever. I had one once (a simple drive whilst disqualified case) who just stopped turning up. I breached him and a warrant was issued when he didn't turn up to court. The natural end of his Order went by, but it was kept open because he was UAL/ WNB. Then he popped up on an attempt murder charge in Southend and was RICed. I can't remember when that Order actually ended or how a contact would deal with that situation. Probably, the Order was quashed when he was sentenced for eventual Wounding with Intent.

      When I was questioned for the SFO investigation, the ACO asked me what I did after he FTA at court. "Put him in abeyance on my caseload" I think I said....it didn't go down well but it was accepted. I think the media won't take that from a CRC. Although I think it would be wrong, the CRC will be held to account. The media won't show the same level of good will to people making money from these cases.

      Delete
  4. Mr Grayling chose benchmarking for prisons rather than continue with privatisation. Benchmarking will be the Plan B for Probation, conjured up from the magician's hat. Privatisation and outsourcing makes absolutely no sense to the public, private or Third sectors under the model proposed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Probation Officer A has been working with Service User A on various orders for 5 years (including in previous years when Service User A was assessed as high risk of harm) and manages his risk by intensive work, regular home visits, substance misuse services, mental health work, he knows the risks involved with Service User A, knows his family and associates and works hard to maintain his risk at a medium level. Service User A is stable and is doing well.

    Service User A then has had a tough couple of months, something triggers his memories of childhood abuse, he begins
    using drugs again and doesn't take his mental health medication as he should be. He becomes unstable and stops attending
    appointments. His risk is not being managed at a medium level and increases to high. In order to manage his risk of harm to the public Service User A is recalled to prison.

    Probation Officer A knows what needs to be done to safely manage Service User A's re-release. He has regular contact with all of the other agencies involved and has been the person instrumental in managing the risk management plans for the past 5 years.

    But Probation Officer A has been allocated to CRC. He is no longer able to work with Service User A. He is no longer able to complete joint appointments with the psychiatrist. His intricate knowledge of Service User A is passed on to the best of his ability to Probation Officer B working for NPS who will work with Service User A from now on.

    Service User A has had a tough couple of months, something triggered his memories of childhood abuse, he began using drugs and didn't take his mental health medication as he should be. He was recalled to prison. He feels that his Probation Officer who he had been working with for 5 years has abandoned him, just as everyone else in his life has done. He feels lost and alone.

    This is happening. Now.

    It is not defensible. It is not safe.

    And it makes me very, very sad.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And when that same offender ends his licence and a year later commits another offence and is assessed as a none MAPPA, medium risk of harm case he will be allocated to CRC. Back to the same officer who he feels abandoned him when he was at his lowest only to be sent off to NPS again when his risk increases. Great plan Mr Grayling. Great plan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Email fthis week from local management team about Court rota for April 2014 - in essence, can anyone from crc side of the room help out please because we've no nps staff for two weeks due to nps training and leave. Also, has anyone got capacity for a couple of reports we can't allocate?

    Answers on a postcard...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about..... No. :-)

      Delete
    2. There will always be the misty eyed subservients who will though. Some of them will have the audacity to complain that they are the only ones who go the extra mile for their service users!

      Delete
    3. That postcard if I was a CRC member of staff would have the words "PISS OFF" on it. And I'm guessing there are also cases of where NPS staff are or will be helping the CRC.

      Delete
  8. Great laugh at work today, disgruntled client shouting in the car park " you fuckers you just wait till yous ave all lost your jobs n ave to set up a fucking burger van in the car park for money" at least 3 of us thought it was a good business idea!
    This is already starting to undermine us in the eyes of clients and they understand we are not valued so are diminished in their eyes. I think of this now as the Grayling effect and we will reap the whirlwind at some point.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I`ve just seen a missive from NOMS AP Section saying that hostels, oops sorry Approved Premises (isn`t that somewhere you can hold a wedding?) will take CRC-managed clients. What? Why? How?
    In most of the country there aren`t enough beds for High Risk ones as it is and clients frequently get pushed out too quickly to make space for the next influx.
    Have the various bits of NOMS perhaps not been talking to each other? How does this fit with the TOM-foolery? How much is an AP bed worth on the open market? Absolute un-thought-through crap, just like the rest of it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lurve the burger van idea. Just wondered if the bid pipeline was aligned to the AP plans for psychologically informed planned environments, which are also in the pipeline, or was it a pipedream? Or the result of too many tokes on a crack pipe? Or a plain old crackers idea? So APs will be housing CRC clients (not high risk as highlighted), plus any amount of PD diagnosed cases?

    ReplyDelete
  11. More justice twaddle here

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmjust/uc94-viii/uc9401.htm

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting that this has reared its head on the justice committee page today, haven't had time to read it yet

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmjust/c741-i/c74101.htm

    ReplyDelete
  13. This might be worth revisiting if there's nowt on telli

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/public-accounts/Transcript%252020%252011%252013.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  14. London is now inviting NPS allocated staff at all grades the chance to opt for CRC as clearly there are not enough staff to pick up CRC cases. Someone didn't do the mathematics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would nps staff want to transfer?

      Delete
    2. I don't know their precise reasons, but there are at least two POs in my office, sifted to the NPS, who now want to transfer to the CRC. I don't work in London, but I'm sure there will be similar stories in the capital. It's just unbelievable that this appalling process hasn't even got the results that the MoJ wanted. If there's a worse example of change management, I'd like to see it.

      Delete
  15. because it might be the only chance to some work life balance, in my area we were told by the NPS designate director that "staff will be driven hard to deliver". Now, given the vast majority of us oppose TR and we have been treated appallingly we are supposed to be so grateful to be in NPS that we will dance to any tune they play! I DON,T THINK SO.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Can you transfer a dispute under COSOP or TUPE? We are still working to contract!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Indeed I think the struggle must be continued by NPS staff.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yesterday we recieved a review of a recent NPS managers meeting included in which was one of the stated aims...."to actively co-operate with the CRC"....unbeliveable, if they want cooperation they should never have split the service....senior managers just dont get it as they bandy concepts around as though they've just thought of them....if we were doing such a bad job in the first place then surely they have to take a large slice of the blame pie but I bet they dont...we're about to move into the resistance phase; the war is not yet lost, I agree with anonymous at 8:04

    ReplyDelete
  19. In our area 1 complete LDU sifted into the NPS, leaving no one to do the CRC case management work. Being NPS top heavy now makes that team very vulnerable to redundancy, and they are being asked who wants to switch to CRC. I'm not sure everyone is really aware of the implications of being in (whichever) oversubscribed team post June 1st.
    Deb

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why on earth would anybody want to switch to CRC from NPS!!!! .....

      Delete
    2. How about they don't want to only do high risk work, or PSRs, or breaches, or take the flak for CRC cases that go wrong, or be part of the command and control structure of the civil service and subject to endless changes of political weather?

      Either side of this fake divide is a bag of shite, but there are valid reasons for choosing one over the other.

      Delete