The blog on Sunday generated a huge amount of discussion and comment on a number of important issues. Indeed so much so, I've decided to pick a few out in order to fill today's blank page. Thanks everyone.
***********************
I think pretty much anyone not directly affected, or who doesn't think they're directly affected, will be rofl-ing. The giggling will stop when the reality of this TR omnishambles hits home with clients and communities alike.
More recalls, linked and protracted benefit sanctions, no access to a supervising officer, back to court for no clear reason, serious further offences, deaths, huge debts for court appearances and/or jail fees, increased criminal activity to compensate, increased numbers who feel excluded, entrenched criminal 'underclass' - with territorial gang warfare developing as people protect themselves - ghettoisation of families already socially isolated on 'benefit street', a call for arming the police as violence increases (water cannon, firearms), CRC and NPS in meltdown as they (1) publicly blame each other over case decisions & (2) haemorrhage staff from the gaping wound that is the TR omnishambles.
Having a giggle? Having a laugh? Not for long.
**********************
Small top senior management team of 3 from Northumbria Trust meeting senior executives from Sodexo this week at a location unknown. This meeting not made public yet. Apparently Sodexo senior executives have already been taken by senior managers from Northumbria to meet service user council a few weeks ago. I'm lead to believe the SUC reps were not impressed by what Sodexo had to say. Need a good investigative journalist to get stuck into this TR and the behind closed doors deals being done to the detriment of probation staff especially in CRCs
*************************
On the subject of Mutual alliances . . .at our last area staff conference, W.Yorks were informed that we were joining forces with Northumbria (I think!) to make a bid for the CRC. We had a pre-recorded audio - visual presentation from their CEO (or similar) extolling the virtues of both areas and how we would make a fine team. Clearly discussions were well down the line; time, effort, resources and finance must have have been utilised. It was a rallying call to get the troops on board and get behind this TR thing that was going to happen whether we liked it or not.
Then, almost as quickly as it was announced, it was no more! No real explanation, just that it was no longer happening. Once again I ask why? What did Northumbria know that W.Yorks didn't, or vice - versa. Did someone at the lofty heights of management get a call on the bat-phone . . .something along the lines of "it was all going so well for you untill you fell into bed with the wrong people!" Someone out there knows the answer . Come on people blow the whistle. No CEO works in isolation, they all send letters/e- mails, they all have personal secretaries. Tell us who communicates directly with MOJ. Senior management do not commit time and effort to a project and then pull it at the last minute unless someone else is pulling the strings.
***********************
Having worked with various companies when the work programme was first rolled out I know a bit about the way it works in the private sector regarding government contracts. It's not a case that many failed early on, they were simply starved and abused by the big players. It was made so impossible to operate, you either closed up leaving a vacancy in the market for the big boys to step into, or you were absorbed in full by the big boys into their operation and did things their way.
For example:- CRCs will require need to use for some clients a drug support agency. That agency will be paid x amount per person referred. But once the private companies are familiar with the processes they'll employ a couple of drug workers on a shite rate of pay to deal with those needing referral. It leaves the drug agency little option but to shut down through lack of referrals or (as the big boys are now holding all the cards) amalgamate and become an extension of the prime company.
So please be careful. I respect your opinion and your decisions but I can't express enough how shockingly cut throat, unethical and disturbing this type of outsourcing really is. Being familiar with good working practices and having an ethical and social conscience, I would argue, makes you even more vulnerable.
************************
Was it Frank Curran who gave the advice to Dorset, Devon & Cornwall senior managers to give The Shaw Trust all the information they needed to put together a bid as a prime, without getting any agreement to form a mutual in writing, enabling them to be dropped sharpish? If it was, I really wouldn't bother going to that conference.
***************************
I think many are confusing the 7 years terms and conditions protection and redundancy. Yes, t's and c's are safe for 7 years but obviously that is only if you're in a job. According to documents sent to those in unison in my team it also highlights that there will be no redundancies for 6 months. Basically, after 6 months they can get rid of who they want - terms and conds mean jack all then.This happened in HMP Northumberland- please don't think that this isn't a real risk. It will be written into contracts regarding redundancies but I imagine this will be a common feature of any takeover bid with any company.
*************************
Any PO's who are in CRC's will be the first to go post sale. The fact is that you are not needed as you will only be doing a job that a 'cheaper' PSO can do. They in turn will be replaced by cheaper staff once the like of Sodexo etc get to grips with things. Mention was previously made of HMP Northumberland where, post sale, the first thing they did was lay off 200 of the 500+ staff; nearly half. Yeah, the prison is probably shit now but that is not and never has been the main driver behind the actions of private companies.
Face it, we've all been shafted by both the MoJ and our own Trusts. Now be a good sheep, get back to work tomorrow, do not question anything and just do as you are told.
Oh, and enjoy your TR training...it's likely to be your last!
**************************
If this is the point that we recognise there is no role for POs in the CRCs (as suggested above) are we being made redundant NOW? I think there is a real possibility we should be taking legal advice NOW. I suggest:
1. all unionised colleagues write to their branch chairs requesting that they take legal advice on their position on this basis immediately.
2. submit FOI requests asking for the CRC PO job description now. If it can't be produced it does not exist.
3. There is a generous redundancy package available that THEY think is just for senior managers well really if we have in effect been made redundant NOW, let's have it for all the CRC POs whose roles have disappeared.
**************************
Exactly! what on earth will PO's be doing in CRC's, I cannot see any role for them. They have been sold down the river. As anon15:04 says is there any chance for class action?Someone on twitter pointed out that The Ministry of Justice is planning to pay private companies to make them redundant. Bidders will, based on the data provided on current staffing levels on each CPA, include in their bids for Year 1 the number of redundancies they plan to make and the costs of these redundancies.
**************************
Also, from what I have been reading up on it will be important for all POs sifted into CRC to put in a grievance about this change of role and responsibilities and constructive dismissal then when it comes to a tribunal, if our grievances are ignored the tribunal can take this into account and order additional compensation. I am going to give the union a set amount of time to respond and then begin making my own enquiries (although why should we be having to do this when part of a union is beyond me!).
****************************
I feel a bit thick for asking this, but as TR rumbles on I seem to be getting more confused daily. But... If a CRC think an offender should be breached, they hand the file to the NPS to effect breach procedures, (is that right)?
But does the person in the NPS who receives the file and request for breach have to act automatically on that request or do they have the autonomy to return the paperwork to the CRC with 'no action taken' because they feel breach is unwarranted at this stage?
Sorry if that's a stupid question.
******************************
Not a stupid question at all but rather an accurate description of the procedure. Our area have had the briefing. CRC staff pass breach details to NPS. If NPS staff disagree with the breach they can make the ultimate decision not to proceed with it. First of all this is insulting to CRC staff who don't forget are also qualified, experienced probation staff who are quite capable of making sound decisions. Secondly, I would like to see the brave member of NPS turning down a breach as they will be leaving themselves wide open come SFO investigation.
This leads me to another point. NPS staff will shoulder the majority of the burden and responsibility for individuals who they will have no personal knowledge of. As we progressed through the briefing I think NPS staff were getting a little uneasy, shifting in seats and nervous coughs - the buck stops well and truly with NPS.
So, lets get on to resettlement - CRC staff can still manage these cases but NPS will prepare all reports. When it comes to an oral hearing both NPS report author and CRC staff member will attend - fabulous idea. Why send one officer when you can have two. Oh , sorry , I forgot NPS staff are the cream of the crop and of course CRC staff will need their expert guidance *twist of the head with attitude and pout*
Lets just say anyone standing outside of the room during our briefing would think we had a top billing standup comedian on the team meeting agenda with the amount of laughter. Don't get me started on the RISK ESCALATION FORM. my god, what a joke.
It really is quite scary to think of what 'they've' come up with. I can imagine 'them' all sitting in that there London, highfiving each other. Actually, I feel really embarrassed for whoever wrote these new procedures thinking they've done a good job. Aww, I'm sorry to tell you that you have completely fucked up. The fact that more than one of Graylings minions will have got their heads together to come up with this shit is even worse.
**************************
At the moment sentencers in West Yorks can use Supervision and Programme requirements instead of PSA Activity requirements, and often choose to do so. But what happens when these disappear under the new Act? The only alternative will be custody.
True, this new Activity model is unpopular, but nobody has to follow the way WY is doing it. PSA is not the same as an Activity Requirement, it's just one way of working an Activity Requirement. I'm sure other Trusts (sorry CRC contractors) will make a better job of it and devise something better than PSA to use in their areas.
But, what happens when each CRC are operating different practices and models? The NPS will be working to a different model again, so any cases being passed between CRC and NPS will be very confused, and each CRC will be working differently to each other, so any sideways transfers again will get confused. I really don't get this CRC/ NPS split - it makes no sense, at all. Are NPS supposed to devise their own version of PSA, and if so would this be national?
PSA in West Yorkshire is a confused muddle. What will it be like when each area has it's own different muddle?
************************
If, as I indicated in earlier posts, Post Sentence Assessment / Generic Activity Requirements are the future in all CRC / NPS areas then we may have to enlist the help of the Judiciary and the Magistrates. I can tell you from direct experience that Magistrates in West Yorks loathe the practice. Whereas they used to take pride and show interest in sentencing an offender to a specific activity / programme, they are now pretty much left to pronounce rather sheepishly (cos they don't really understand it) . . . "we are not sending you to custody today, instead we are giving you a 12 month Community Order with a 30 day Activity Requirement" . . .look of confusion all round as if to say "is that it ?". Because that kind of generic sentencing lacks any detail, magistrates are now latching on to the fact that all CO's have to contain a punitive element and before long the 'punitive' sanction will have more credence than the 'rehabilitative' element.
**************************
I thought CRCs were staffed by probation SPO, PO and PSO staff. If they send a breach to NPS, and if I've read blog correctly, CRC staff will be just as experienced, competent and able to decide on breaches. If that is overturned by NPS staff that its not warranted at this point, on what grounds would the decision be made? Would NPS staff seek to interview the service user themselves because they question the judgement of the CRC staff. I can see that causing a massive amount of professional friction and duplication of effort. NPS staff would need to provide evidence/ information to CRC staff, which I guess would put the nose out of CRC staff.
I could imagine that any opportunity that a CRC member of staff get to have one back on NPS staff would follow... Very very divisive, what an absolutely mad situation. At moment probation serves the public well, is joined up, and effective. Being replaced by systems aimed at serving share holders, us divisive, fragmented and untested. Whistle blowers get ready, journalists get ready, there is going to be plenty of negative stuff coming from probation. I hope no matters which leads to a child(ren) or person(s) being seriously hurt or killed due to this idiotic TR experiment occurs.
*****************************
Grayling was at the BBC and maybe experienced a successful TQM exercise which was used at the BBC using the DRIVER approach:
* define the project
* review the business baseline
* identify opportunities
* verify opportunities
* evaluate & plan implementation
* review and report
The review highlighted that many of the ways of doing business had simply grown up and turned into traditions... The opportunities to improve were clear. Reduced staffing, modified work practices and a general focus by managers on the bottom line... it was recognised that for these changes to have any durability or long lasting impact upon the business it was vitally important that everyone in the business understood the part they had to play in turning it around... this approach was suggested as a template for application in the public sector.
What is missed out above, and what Grayling etc have also missed out, are the fundamentals of what TQM is. It is NOT a top-down imposition at a rate of knots for the sake of political expediency, it is an inclusive, collaborative process that requires careful design and implementation.
I don't think you have stretch the imagination too much to apply a many of the issues raised here to probation work.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/blogs/content/16914/not_everything_that_matters_can_be_measured#.UwxlJLsRf5Y
I frequently hear nowadays that our sector doesn’t actually know if we’re doing any good.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me really cross. There’s something ridiculously patronising about the notion that day after day a bunch of charity sector workers and volunteers turn up to work with no idea at all if what they’re doing is helping!
Charities do know whether or not the work they’re engaged in is any good. The real problem is not that they don’t know, or even that they don’t measure it, it’s that they don’t measure it using the same metrics, or language, as those people exhorting them to ‘demonstrate’ their impact.
There’s a small charity I know on the south coast which got a small grant from the local authority to provide a volunteer outreach service to elderly folk who were still living in their own homes but were unable to get out much and no longer had family around them. The purpose of the work was to alleviate some of the profound loneliness experienced by the beneficiaries as a result of their situation. The volunteer programme basically consisted of willing folk visiting these elderly people in their homes to provide company and comfort.
They were told by the local authority that unless they could demonstrate the impact of the outreach volunteer programme, funding would be withdrawn.
The charity already monitors the work of its volunteers; they are debriefed on their visits, asked what further support they or the elderly person might need and so on. All this is recorded. But this apparently wasn’t sufficient. So what are they supposed to do? Ask Mr Jones, aged 87, to complete a questionnaire: “How lonely were you before the visit? How lonely were you afterwards?” Ridiculous.
This is typical of what is so often demanded. Not useful reporting, in the charity’s own words, of what they are doing. But what I call EBOs (evidence of the bleedin’ obvious). It’s bleedin’ obvious that there is a real benefit to the lonely elderly having companionship. Is it really worth wasting valuable funds, time, energy and effort creating some ‘measurement’ models that can be put on a piece of paper and fed into a computer?
Further – the cost of doing some form of ‘formal’ measurement that suited the local authority’s requirements was clearly disproportionate to the size of the grant.
The whole notion of impact measurement, as it is currently perceived, sits uneasily with me. Don’t get me wrong. Of course charities should know what they achieve and be able to demonstrate it – but for the purpose of delivering for beneficiaries, not to satisfy some poorly thought-through requirement of a (usually statutory) funder. There are those who would say it’s unarguable that charities should produce impact reports. But let’s ask - what do funders do with these ‘impact’ reports they insist upon receiving? Because, let’s be honest, an awful lot of them probably don’t even get read at all, let alone acted upon. What’s wrong with accepting what’s said in the annual report?
So – let me outline the issues with the current concept of ‘impact measurement’ as I see it.
Who pays for it? In my experience conservatively-minded funders are loathe to pay for what can be seen as ‘administration’ costs undertaken by those mythical gremlins of the charity world – ‘backroom staff’. If funders demand measurement without offering the funds to cover it there is a real danger that it will divert resources from frontline work.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know if what you are asking to be measured is actually what matters? How do you set your criteria or monitor largely intangible outcomes? How long is that proverbial piece of string? I’m a huge fan of data and evidence generally – but we need to get it in perspective.
What about the ‘hidden’ unmeasurable impact – which is arguably more important? Human lives are a dynamic system where the actions or decisions of one person can have profound and unforeseen effects on their future. For example, how do you account for the interventions of a charity in the life of a child? During the formative years of childhood we are surrounded by ideas and choices which shape who we become later in life. Take a seemingly benign intervention in the form of an after-school club. The real impact is not something that can be measured short term. It’s long term and largely unmeasurable (at least affordably). Do the children stay longer in education; are they less likely to end up in prison; more likely to earn more? How on earth would you know? It’s an EBO.
Who is the measurement actually for? Far too often it’s not actually about gathering evidence to improve a service – but satisfying the requirements of a funder who is asking for it because someone somewhere told them to. The assumption being everyone can measure, ergo everyone should measure. The problem is that if you can’t measure the work you do, the temptation is to do the work you can measure.
Is it actually worth it? Is the measurement going to tell you anything you don’t already know? Or put a disproportionate burden on smaller charities when funders begin to expect the same level of detail in impact reports that they require from larger charities? For a community centre seeking a grant for a new roof the benefit is obvious – what ‘impact’ could they possibly demonstrate on a piece of paper that’s worth the effort? “98 per cent of our visitors no longer get wet. We know this because we asked them to fill in a form”?!
Perhaps this is our own fault. Do we just blindly go along with whatever a funder asks for in order to secure the money – and end up doing stuff we know isn’t worth doing for the sake of a quiet life?
I think we should challenge them at the start. Ask them: who is this for? Who is going to read it? What are you going to do with it? I suspect that more than half the time it’s just a tick-box exercise – in which case we might just as well make it up.
Charities should not just roll over and invent ever more complex ways of reporting on their work to satisfy half-thought-through demands from some funders. We need to engage in dialogue with them. Find out what they want – then show them how we know what we do matters.
And let’s never forget that old mantra – ‘not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured’.
I think that's an excellent article and provokes a number of questions in my own mind.
DeletePrivate companies demand vast degrees of performance data. What critera will be imposed on those in CRCs to take that measurement? As it's different companies that run CRCs that measurement wont be a universal one I guess?
And how will the third sector involved with TR respond (and cope) with a constant need to demonstrate their achievements and translate that to statistical data?
I'm begining to see TR as a tumour, everytime you look at addressing one root you discover another complex cluster of roots that run even deeper.
I am sorry there does not seem to have been much discussion of Mactailgunner's last 'Weather Report' and even sorrier that such topics have not featured in the advance notice of the business of Napo's Special General Meeting for ALL full members on 5th March.
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether their will be any emergency motions from the floor about such issues.
Were I a full member it would be one general meeting I would not want to miss as it seems likely to be one of the most vital in Napo's history, Thereby members who are not present will be stuck with decisions taken by activists which could effect the whole of the rest of all their careers.
http://www.napo2.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=526&p=2673#p2673
There there is a problem with rumour and half truth which is sometimes difficult to disentangle sometimes. The supposed WY and Northumbria CRC is and never was true. It was an alliance and no more, which when TR appeared was no longer viable. Yes one of the things from WY side was perhaps their post sentence system and their enthusiasm for it, but their was no reciprocation from Northumbria. I think from my management they are dealing with things as best as they can and nobody from the admin staff to the chief executive is looking at TR with enthusiasm. In the circumstances they are doing the best they can.
ReplyDeletePO'S IN CRC AT REAL RISK
ReplyDeleteSenior management meeting today - general consensus that there is no role for PO's in CRC. The main tasks of a PO are being kept within NPS. There is no job description for PO's yet. The tasks that are being removed from them and that are not required within CRC are not being replaced with any other role or task of equal merit. We believe they have been well and truly shafted in this process and remain vulnerable to first swathe of redundancies.
we've been asking the same question in our area. what exactly will a po be doing in the crc's? their experience may be used for a short while in the beginning while things are being set up but after that??? why keep on an expensive po when you are employing pso's who can basically do the same job but at a cheaper rate. I think Po's in crc's have a lot to be concerned about and have been shafted.
DeleteYet another reason why NAPO action will fail. As you will get some NPS staff looking down on and doing a hehe at CRC POs who are at increased risk of losing their jobs post share sale. 80% of the time I look at this blog it is the same thing, over and over again, "POs in CRC will lose their jobs".
ReplyDeleteYes I am know I am increased risk of losing my job thank you very much, I am not stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you're right anon@18:26 there's a definite 'i'm alright jack' among nps staff, certainly in our office. I think to be fair to anon 18:08 it sounds like its from a manager who is at least acknowledging the risk as opposed to managers who try to keep up the "innovation/new ways of working" tripe. we all know po@s in crc will not be needed. effectively been made redundant from day 1
ReplyDeleteLittle comfort if tied to an area but tail gunners report noted a need for POs each year of 300 due to natural wastage. So there may be jobs in NPS probably in south east or at least in the South.
ReplyDeleteremember though any new job within nps will be advertised internally so will be open to civil servants. crc staff will be well down pecking order. also any crc po will have to start from scratch pay wise as continuity of service has not been protected - crc to nps
DeleteWhilst HMS NPS sales away POs and PSOs in CRCs are cut adrift and left to fight to survive in an untested and badly designed life raft with all life jackets taken up by senior managers
ReplyDeleteHave people forgotten that whether NPS or CRC case administrators do actually exist!!
ReplyDeleteYes I totally agree with Anon 19:25 - Admin never seem to get mentioned and I feel they are just as vulnerable as the PO's particularly in the CRC. They will expect PSO's to do their own admin no doubt once the CRC's take over as another way to save money and burn out the PSO's who will by this time will be doing a PO job! Crazy but true I suspect.
ReplyDeleteReally?!! I am an admin worker and I can't possibly see how admin jobs could be cut. I also don't see admin role as being the most vulnerable either whether in NPS or CRC!
DeleteIn my opinion, the CRC PO's need only wait for the government to decide that CRCs are coping. Then, CRC's will take over the whole of probation. Government don't want probation. They want a smaller state. CRCs will do everything at a fraction of cost. There will be no NPS . It won't be needed. CRC have now more than enough competent and capable staff. It makes no sense to have parallel organisations. I have felt this from the beginning.
ReplyDeleteLet's not be divisive about job roles and grades. We're all facing uncertain futures. I just hope they serve the redundancy notices quickly, I need to move on from this madness. It's taken a terrible toll on my mental health. Anti-depressants and sleeping pills now. Directly attributable to TR.
ReplyDeleteI think Anon 19:59 raises a valid point and I have wondered if the NPS exists only as a vehicle for Grayling to satisfy MPs that public safety concerns will be managed. Once up and running he can then divest the whole lot to the privates sector, and by that we really mean the Primes don't we? This is the death of our profession, the end game is on.....
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure this is what the government and primes wanted from the beginning. The new NPS is a cynical tool as is the probation institute in my humble opinion. All to
DeleteSmooth the way with public and MPs for corporate takeover. The budget squeezes and reductions are going to continue in the coming years. They are going to have to find the savings somewhere for the "hard working tax payers " ( like we aren't hard-working sigh). The writing is definitely on the wall for public probation. Ask yourself this, if the intention was really to har exceptional staff in an elite organisation, they would have used proper selection criteria based on individuals and their merit. They didn't .
To my mind, that can only mean one thing...
Any SPO attend the Cumbria and Lancashire NPS briefing on Monday ? News filtering out about how the NPS will be organised on something less than a shoe string with no redundancies just yet but they are a coming.....
ReplyDeleteGrayling already has committed ministry of justice to 20% cuts 2015 on....
DeleteIts an old tactic people don't let them divide us because that is exactly what they are doing. Its not over yet stick together and fight the bastards.
ReplyDeleteI think I'm gonna stop reading this blog for a bit as it is really doing my head in. No disrespect to you Jim as I think your posts are really good, but this trolling en masse is getting me down.
ReplyDeleteonce again, peoples genuine concerns and opinions labelled as trolling.
DeleteIf people thought about how they put their genuine concerns and opinions across, and how others might be affected by what they say, perhaps we wouldn't need to use such labels.
DeleteI'm a PO in Durham Tees Valley, earning just over £30k p/a. Much has been said about the very low possibility of me retaining employment in the CRC and I accept this and am actively looking for a new job. Not just because I expect to be sacked soon, but due to the strain that this whole TR has had on my health. I lost too much sleep and cried too often and I'm NOT letting this go on. However, can I ask that PO's do not hog the limelight as there are a LOT of PSO's who are at the top of their wage band and who, like many others, will find that they are simply too expensive for employment by private companies!!
ReplyDeleteI have TR training coming up soon and, right now, feel like just refusing to turn up until I get a copy and confirmation of my job description in DTV CRC!!! What is 100% clear is that ALL goodwill has now been officially withdrawn, PSR's will be getting refused, 1 hour lunch breaks will be the norm as will 8.30 starts and 5pm finish.
I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO angry, not least of which is the fact that out esteemed leader appears to have done little and is giving up his post in June!
You know what, and apologies for swearing but I don't care..FUCK THEM ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Expect your P45 when you start refusing to do PSRs. As although you are CRC, without a job description you have to do what your manage instructs you do, to not do so is insubordination.
Deleteonly 2 months left of psr writing, high risk cases etc for crc anyway. come june 1st then crc will not be allowed to write psrs etc or do any work that is nps
DeleteHave u checked this out with your managers as I think you could be in a rude awakening in thinking you will not longer be writing PSRs by 01.06.14.
Deleteyes.had this confirmed last week. not sure why you think this wouldn't be the case. the trusts no longer exist come 1.6.14. crc cannot do work of nps and vice versa. crc will not longer be under control of the trust so cannot direct to perform tasks of nps. the next couple of months is the time that blurring of tasks between two organisations will occur while still under the control of trust.
DeleteThat's not what I have been told by management in my trust. I have been told there will be a transition period until October 2014.
Deletewe've not officially been told but there is strong suggestion in our area that in june the staff split is final and work will be divided accordingly.
DeleteNope, defo no reports for crc. No psrs, drrs, paroms etc. it's in some newly released paperwork. Commentor abovve is right, come 1st June split occurs and workload with it. Crc can legitimately refuse to do any work outside their roles (if you know what these are). If you are unsure, simply ask your spo to clarify them, in writing! I'm sure they'll oblige ;)
DeleteTime to do little apart from look for a new career before all of the others decide to. Far better to be up against one po than 5!
At least most of us will be bettry qualified than most psos who will also be going the way of the po's so stand a better chance of landing that new job :o
Don't say things like that about PSO's it's unjust. There are many talented and very qualified people in probation. Probation being only 1. String to their bows. We're all in this together it shouldn't be an is and them situation. You can help others or make them feel hurt and or inferior. I sincerely hope you'll choose the former.
DeleteCRC Handbook. Version 2.2
Delete2.9 Section 4 of the Act reserves the function of giving assistance to the court to determine the appropriate sentence to pass or making any other decision in respect of an offender, to public bodies. During the period when the CRCs are wholly owned by the Secretary of State they will count as public bodies for the purposes of section 4 – however, there are no plans for them to provide these services during this period. On share sale to the successful bidders they will cease to be public bodies for the purposes of section 4 and therefore be prohibited from providing advice to court.
My view, and it is only that , an opinion, but the readers of this blog are on the wrong side of an ever decreasing circle. We do not know what is occurring , there is a vacuum of information , there is division between NPS and CRC and this is developing a depression. I can't say the world will be brilliant, but we have to remain strong and focused particularly on what we DO know and not what we DONT know. Now is the time for ALL grades to support each other , on here , in the office , in the pub!
ReplyDeleteWork hard at this support - Advise , Assist and Befriend if you need to , there are potential tragedies amongst our own if we don't - oh and it's February too (always a crap month)
I feel I ought to jump in here and say something - just got in from a trip to the cinema.
ReplyDeleteObviously feelings are running very high indeed and there are accusations of trolling. I honestly do not feel this is the case - BUT - there really was a degree of denial amongst some colleagues as to exactly what all this shit amounts to. Believe me, it's going to be shit in NPS and CRC and if anyone is being smug they are deluding themselves
My aim remains to try and use this blog to try and defeat this whole bloody dangerous omnishambles by what ever means necessary. It is having traction and I believe is spawning lots of individual actions by increasing numbers of people.
In the end I believe that's how all wrongs get righted - by popular concerted action. Please stick together, look after each other and remain focused on how even at this late hour, we can defeat TR,
Well said Jim
DeleteI sincerely hope you are right Jim, but I am increasingly feeling like King Canute........
ReplyDeleteDeb
"12 years a slave" Jim?
ReplyDeleteI think what is happening on here is not trolling but people's fears coming through. The lack of real information coming out of what things will look like for every grade whether NPS or CRC will no doubt be wearing everyone down, causing enormous amounts of distress about what the future will hold etc. It is like we are all stuck on hold and it is the feelings of a total lack of control in our lives that is contributing to the fear. If people are turning on each other on here or in the offices, then we are no better than the government. Where are the values that we hold as Probation staff? It may be that in times of blind panic, people are forgetting them as self-preservation kicks it but don't forget who you are and what you stand for if you are considering turning on a colleague just because they were randomly assigned to one organisation or another.
ReplyDeleteNo not yet - 'The Human Scale'
ReplyDelete