TO: ALL MEMBERS
STOP THE SPLIT ON 1st JUNE 2014/CLARIFICATION OF STRIKE TIMINGS
Members are increasingly reporting the true scale of damage inflicted on Probation Trusts by the TR agenda. The huge numbers of staff vacancies and the organisational chaos means that service delivery is in constant threat of collapse*. This is even before the formal split has happened. However, much of this reality is being hidden from the public by sessional work.
Yesterday, at the SGM in Birmingham, we announced further strike action over the 31stMarch to the 1st of April. The strike announcement was posted on our website but, as we were all at SGM, you may have received notice via twitter or the BBC website-such is the time we live in.
***CORRECTION TO THE BRANCH CIRCULAR TO MEMBERS BR 29/2014***
To avoid any doubt, this should have read that the Strike will be from Midday on 31st March and all Day on 1st April and the formal legal notice to employers will be issued on that basis - apologies for that glitch.
In order to maximise the impact of this escalated strike there will follow a month long programme of action short of strike action. Members will be instructed not to undertake any sessional work whatsoever for the month of April. You can even start this now by declining the additional work. If you are doing sessional work now, then don’t book anything in for April. This will have a hugely detrimental impact on service delivery but it will be nothing compared to what will happen after the 1st of June.
To have any chance of stopping or delaying the split we need members to unmask what is going on. Sessional programmes will have to cease for April. Courts will struggle to sentence. So be it. As above, this is nothing compared to the impending car crash after the 1st of June. It is our responsibility to show just how bad this all is. MP’s are asking for evidence about how bad things are but our sessional work is hiding it from public view. If the government continues to press ahead with TR then we will press ahead with further industrial action.
Members will receive pledge cards which you can stick up at work about not helping the TR process with overtime. In order to protect yourself from any disciplinary action you must do any task which you are “directed” to do. Always seek clarification in writing.
Further guidance will be with you early next week.
If you have examples of just how bad things are getting, email:campaigns@napo.org.uk and we will put it in our dossier for MPs.
*In some Trusts, managers are being offered to “sell” back their annual leave. Court SPOs have said they will lose up to half of their allocation slots when they lose report writers to the CRC.
Tom Rendon Ian Lawrence
National Chair General Secretary
National Chair General Secretary
Come on napo withdraw from graylings probation institute smoke screen. Get yer gloves off its bare knuckle time. What about practitioners whose caseload is in the red. What advice to them.
ReplyDeleteIf Probation Institute is about professionalism and good practice , what kind of an example is the current situation?? NAPO pull out of the PI planning and stop legitimising the farcical situation.
ReplyDeleteLook too at the others who have tried to improve professional practice and good practice such as the Probation Association who have cowered in a corner since TR began and Probation Chiefs Association - a spirited early skirmish before selling out ....The PI will become a trade association , sponsored by privateers, selling self help guides, insurance and health care!
I am a regular reader and occasional contributor to this site. I have commented recently that there is no stomach for strike action and based on my colleagues' reactions today I would urge NAPO to get some feedback from branch level before going ahead with industrial action . . .I fear the poor turnout will play straight into the hands of Grayling. Before I publish any response on this blog I usually write down my thoughts and read them through a couple of times to make sure i am not over reacting or letting my emotions get the better of me. I have my own theory as to why we are a couple of years into this whole TR mess and only in the last couple of months have PO's and PSO's started to waken from their slumber!. Now before I unleash my: what i believe will prove to be controversial, thoughts I would like some statistical information. . . can anyone tell me the gender split, percentage wise, of operational PO's and PSO's across all the trusts in England and wales ?.
ReplyDeleteOff topic but in court yesterday individual sentenced to CO with three requirements, costs, 'victim surcharge' £60 (any evidence of where this money goes?) AND 'punitive' fine of £400. Felt sick to be part of this. Justice system increasingly a revenue collection opportinity for the MoJ money sharks and greedy politicians dining out on the backs of the most vulnerable. It is going to get worse. I am horrified by the rapid descent of our service and the relentless constitutional vandalism. Sick of the ignorance of MoJ. Angered by the sight of colleagues stressed to the limit by being given more and more and more to do because the office is virtually empty. Inhuman.
DeleteI agree, I work in court team and straight forward UPW/attendance centre/curfew cases now being fined without reports being requested by the District Judges.
DeleteAnon at 01:25 - the gender split question - should be a very easy question to answer, but in the mean time lets hazard a guess. Female 85% Male 15%. I'll be interested to know what point this is leading up to because there is an argument that says when any occupation becomes mostly skewed towards female staff, invariably terms and conditions worsen.
DeleteBut when you say "there is no stomach for strike action" whats your evidence?Its one thing reflecting on views from one office or one Branch but Napo hq will be working off feedback from the NEC reps who cover whole country and info gained from links between Branch Chairs and National staff.
DeleteProbation: A Representative & Diverse Service?
DeleteHow representative of the wider population is probation? Women represented 71% of the probation workforce in post on 31 December 2011, whilst men were 29% of the total. The percentage of probation posts held by female staff has remained steady (hovering around 70-71%) since 2009, notwithstanding a 7% drop in the overall number of probation posts during this period.
The proportion of senior probation posts held by women rose by 5% between 2009 and 2011.
In terms of race and ethnicity, 14.1% of probation staff were from a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BME) background on 31 December 2010.
Probation staff from a Black ethnic background represented 8.3%, those from an Asian background represented 3.5%, those of Mixed background were 1.8% and while those of Chinese or Other background represented 0.5% of the service.
The proportion of senior probation staff (that is, Chief Executives, Deputy Chief Officers, Assistant Chief Officers and Area/District Managers) from a BME background was 8%.
All of these figures suggest that probation has enjoyed more success in achieving diversity amongst its staff, including senior staff, than other criminal justice agencies.
At a senior level, 8.0% of staff identified themselves as from a BME background (up from 7.6% in 2009). Those from Black and Asian backgrounds represented 4.1% (up from 3.6% in 2009) and 2.5% (down from 2.9% in 2009) of senior level staff respectively.
http://crimlinks.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/probation-in-statistics/
Another 3 notices of leaving handed in during the last 2weeks. That's halved the crc pso complement in our team, while po staff are openly actively seeking opportunities elsewhere. Many are looking to do a sw conversion, some considering other options like pgce or tefl. Its more like a careers convention or job centre than a probation office. There'll be noone left to join the PI at this rate.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jennymccartney/100262545/legal-aid-chris-grayling-is-now-inextricably-entwined-with-from-the-disaster-he-has-created/
ReplyDeleteWhat is happening to our justice system? Every one of us, I’m sure, would agree that a court appearance for young children who are making allegations of sexual abuse is already extremely traumatic. It doesn’t need to be made any more so by the judicial process – yet that is exactly what is going on.
ReplyDeleteLast week a barrister of many years call described to me how just such a case of hers, involving children under ten, was recently postponed for the second time, this time just one day before the trial. I am withholding her identity in order to protect the children’s chances of getting a fair hearing on the third attempt.
The prospect of the trial had loomed large over them for two years, ever since the defendant’s arrest – one confessed to frequent nightmares about both the court and the defendant – and they were now desperate to get it over with. Twice, they had mustered their courage to appear, as the adults around them sought to calm their nerves, only for it to be suddenly called off.
Their barrister did not mince her words. She called it “a disgrace”. She did not blame the courts – since the trial gave way for equally serious and traumatic cases – but the fact that the Ministry of Justice kept cutting court staff, sitting days and judges. She herself had lost more than a week of diary time when the case was due to be heard, for which she would be paid nothing, but that was not the main source of her concern.
Fixtures, particularly those involving vulnerable witnesses, used to be “set in stone”, she said. But she had noticed a real change in the last 18 months: “where once fixtures were dependable, now they are simply not.” She told of another recent case of hers in which a trial involving a five-year-old alleged rape victim was pulled the day before it was due because no judge was available to hear it.
The barrister said: “I am ashamed of the state of our criminal justice system and the way it is racing to the bottom … I find it hard to look alleged victims and witnesses and defendants in the face when they ask me when trials will take place.”
I know a few criminal barristers, and they seem to me to be a pretty robust and pragmatic bunch. In the course of their prosecution or defence work they are regularly exposed to a side of life that many of us would find deeply shocking and disturbing, particularly cases involving rape or abuse. They are far from immune to such emotional responses, but they have to behave professionally, get on with the job, and attempt to be part of the machinery that delivers justice.
The vast majority care instinctively about access to justice for individuals who are in the most extreme circumstances: otherwise, as they are keenly aware, they could be earning far more money at the commercial bar.
Have read the above link and am really getting the feeling that at last we can get some publicity for our concerns about public safety and our plight. Suggest we all start to contact any media outlet be it press, radio TV and start to press the point. Do it as individuals for greater impact I think?
ReplyDeleteI agree annon 08:44. Barristers are going to strike, probation are going to strike, police are unhappy, theres a week of protests happening at the same time over the workfare plans, the nhs is crumbling, the prison system is confused and failing everything is broken.
DeleteI feel all the seeds the government have sown are about to ripen all at once, but I think its going to be a crop that they're not going to like.
I also think this is a very interesting case that may have a spanner or two for some of Graylings plans.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/06/legal-aid-cuts-prisoners-high-court-challenge
The government's decision to deprive prisoners of legal aid has been challenged in the high court on Thursday by charities warning that it will hamper rehabilitation efforts and fail to save money.
DeleteTwo related claims are being brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners' Advice Service (PAS) in an attempt to overturn Ministry of Justice cutbacks imposed last year.
Legal aid is still available in cases involving an inmate's liberty but in other hearings at the Parole Board and complaints about conditions inside jails inmates will no longer be provided with legal representation.
Phillippa Kaufmann QC, appearing for both charities, said the changes will lead to "huge unfairness" as inmates no longer have access to legally-aided presentation at hearings within the prison system. People are not going to be able to adequately represent themselves. The cuts will also interfere with the right of access of prisoners to the courts."
She added: "The secretary of state has made absolutely clear he doesn't believe that prisoners should have access to legal aid to go to court about these matters. These are ideological reasons entirely contrary to the rule of law. He has created a system that is inherently unfair."
James Eadie QC, appearing for the Justice Secretary, said arguments about ministers "victimising and targeting of prisoners" had already been considered by Parliament, but the new regulations had been approved against a backdrop of the need for "financial stringency in the legal aid system because of scarce resources".
If prisoners need extra help because of vulnerability or mental health issues, "no doubt proper allowance will be made for that", Eadie added. The UK legal aid system "is pretty much at the top of the tree in generosity".
The high court heard that a legal challenge by another campaign group against the government's imposition of a residence test for legal aid will also go ahead in the coming months. The judges, however, reserved their decison on whether to give permission for the Howard League and PAS case should go to a full hearing.
Frances Crook, chief executive of the league, said: "The removal of legal aid to help children in prison make fresh starts is contrary to the whole aim of the youth justice system, which is to prevent reoffending.
"These cuts will not result in savings for the taxpayer. On the contrary, they will result in increased costs as children remain in prison for longer than is necessary for want of a safe home to go to.
"It's obscene that taxpayers' money is being squandered in protecting venal payments to bankers [in a challenge over EU restrictions on bonuses] at the same time that mothers being separated from their babies in prison will not get legal aid to help them."
Deborah Russo, joint managing solicitor at the PAS, said: "The legal aid cuts to prison law have resulted in prisoners' access to justice being severely curtailed. The prisons and probation ombudsman, the chief inspectorate of prisons and the Parole Board have all expressed grave concern at legal aid being cut for prisoners. These cuts are further isolating an already very marginalised sector of our society."
The charities' first legal challenge argues that removing legal aid for a small number of Parole Board cases relating to when inmates may be transferred to an open prison is unlawful. "Once in open conditions, prisoners can apply to do work and receive education in the community," the charities said. "This step is key for prisoners' rehabilitation and public safety. Making prisoners go through this stage without legal advice and representation is counter-productive."
Their second claim argues that prisoners are being denied access to justice on such matters as mothers being threatened with separation from their babies or children and disabled prisoners seeking a support package for release. "Managing people through long prison sentences is a skilful business, which needs to be handled with extreme care so that they can resettle safely into the community," the charities said.
DeleteResponding to the legal action, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling, said: "I'm determined to see these reforms through. It's not right to ask taxpayers to fund legal aid for lawyers to represent prisoners arguing about which prison they should be held in. We have a complaints system that can handle those things. Of course we have to give offenders proper representation in court, but I'm not going to provide criminal legal aid for things that should be dealt with by other means."
In a House of Lords debate earlier this year, former chief inspector of prisons Lord Ramsbotham warned that the "restrictions come on top of a whole host of other cuts and deliberately tough sanctions against prisoners, and are resulting in mounting unrest … Justice is a crucial ingredient of safety in a prison."
The crossbench peer Lord Pannick said: "This is to reverse 35 years of progress in the approach adopted by the legal system to the treatment of prisoners. Without legal assistance a prisoner is simply not going to be able to make his or her points effectively and speedily by reference to the applicable legal requirements. Unhappily, many prisoners lack basic skills of literacy or suffer from other problems which impede their ability to present an effective grievance."
The justice minister, Lord Faulks, told the same debate: "In these straitened times, there has to be some modification of legal aid to circumstances where, in the government's view, it is not necessary for the complaints … to have the benefit of lawyers.
"We have targeted legal aid where we think it is most appropriate … Certainly, we have no wish to persecute prisoners for populist reasons. It is an attempt to deal with a difficult problem in these straitened times."
At this moment in time, given what's going on with TR. can someone from NAPO comment here and now providing a justification for their continued involvement and membership of the TR motivated and conceived PROBATION INSTITUTE. Napo can stay involved with PI but I'm not joining and I'm leaving NAPO. It's a PRINCIPLE thing. Let grayling know probation workers and their union mean business. Further can I ask - if TR wasn't on the agenda would the MOJ have part funded it?????
ReplyDeleteThe Probation Institute serves to legitimise TR. The MoJ points to the presence of Napo on the PI Board. It sends a mixed message: we fiercely oppose TR but we are part of its architecture. Not a bad idea in theory but the timing was all wrong. Napo talks about sending messages to the wider public – through strike action and birthday cards for Grayling. Withdrawing from the PI would send a message. You can't be a poacher and a gamekeeper simultaneously.
DeleteSurely it's quite simple; if NAPO officially withdraw from the PI and absolutely no practitioners join it, then it will cease to exist in any meaningful way. We should have taken this position from the off, and not have cosied up to the idea. It has seriously undermined our fight.
ReplyDeleteDeb
I agree NAPO needs to make a stand and come out of the PI.
ReplyDeleteThe MOJ unions and other professional bodies need to get their act together. The MOJ is in meltdown; tension in the prison estate is rising soner rather than later it will kick off. A lot of unrest is being hidden employment in some sections of the CJS is dangerous.
The reason we are in this mess is that those who are wholly compliant and have zero sense of collectivity now outnumber those who do. Thid is the crux of the ptoblem and it cant be remeded
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anon 13:45 that those colleagues who either thought others should fight the battle, did not believe it would happen or simply trusted in "what will be will be" bear a significant amount of blame for our predicament in allowing this to be done to us. However, after believing the Probation Institute should be supported I now firmly believe NAPO should withdraw from it. PI is simply a veneer to indicate that Grayling et al value our profession THEY DO NOT. Please think about motions from your NAPO branches to withdraw from the PI.
ReplyDeleteI've just looked up their website and application form, am I right in thinking that anyone can join? Are there no minimum qualifications to be a member? Then what is the point?!?! Apart to legitimise TR?
DeleteOh, and to give the Chief Officers an income in return from leaving their posts. I guess everyone has a price. How disappointing. Come on Chief Officers, stand up for what you once believed!!!
Delete-anon 15:35 it's easier to attack those around you, the culprit for this is mr grayling, keep your venom for him.
ReplyDeleteIt's a valid view and not venom - can we please be open to differing views on here.
DeleteOk but saying other staff ' bear significant blame for what is happening to us' is putting the blame in the wrong direction..
Deleteoh dear, an end to my blogging ever I'm afraid, I did not mean it to be "venom" just my view about the collective responsibility for this mess in the hope people would realise we all must do something/anything. I'm afraid I won't be airing my views again.
ReplyDeleteanon 15:35.
You mean Jim Isn't real?!! I feel cheated!
DeleteSimon Garden
Don't be put off anon 20.40! We are all anonymous here and can say what we like without fear of humiliation or injured reputations! Jim is a hairy nosed wombat!! :) See, nothing happened :)
DeleteAnon 09:22 - you're barred!
DeleteI think we need a grayling effigy like the one that barristers today. Looked just like him. That's the kind of a ruin and publicity we need. Lets hope we can get that kind of atmosphere end of the month and loads of publicity.
ReplyDeleteThat's shame anon 15.35. I'm always nervous about posting here and I check several times to preserve my anonymity. I have had some negative responses from people who are in the same state of stress as me but may verbalise it differently. Jim has quoted me four times in his main blog, it's given me a real opportunity to air my views. Please keep posting and don't let one equally frustrated person keep you off.
ReplyDeleteOh and I'm not the person who accused you of venom!
DeleteI thought the strikes today were well organised, high impact and innovative. Unfortunately the Probation strikes have not been in the same league and as such taken far less seriously. We needed to have taken collective action and advantage of this well organised event. If so maybe support for NAPO would be stronger - think outside the box. It appears that instead of solidarity people are turning upon each other as evidenced by comments on this blog - so sad but just what Grayling wants.
ReplyDeleteoops I just typed a massive entry and deleted myself (again). Today I was flattered to hear that a former colleague had suggested I was jim (old angry grumpy and cqsw traien but not as enthusiastic and committed and steady I fear. So Sean it aint me.
ReplyDeleteMy week began with angry client querying tagging breach- queried with the tagging company- they looked into it and dropped the breach. Now I only have the vastly unfair fining and bailiff enforcement of non payment of those who have been unfairly sanctioned. Let us not lose sight of our clients realities also.
Also faced with man on demanding order imposed on first court date after drunken offence. How do we understand complex domestic violence in the course of a brief same day court interview. How does the client understand what they are being sentenced to? In the past NAPO recognised the unacceptability of this practice ( no stand down reports - why are we colluding with this. Professional committee has even more of a role to play now.
Well I've set an example for Chris Grayling - I've made a U Turn when I needed to do so. I've just rejoined NAPO, after leaving last month. I wont go into the negatives, but the positive in my opinion is another strike. I wrote a letter to my CEO saying that I'm not longer a member of NAPO but there will be no way that I will cross the picket line. Then I realised that I didnt want to come out in sympathy with my colleagues, but that I should be one with them. So I've rejoined NAPO, and I hope there's to be more strikes and that Chris Grayling will follow my example and make that all important U turn.
ReplyDeleteA busy office in a small northern town-so typical of many across the country-a straw poll on Friday-out of 30+ napo members 3 are confirmed as intending to support the proposed action...many napo members trotting out the usual "I can't afford to"..."what's the point"....arguments....I'm sick of the "it's a personal choice" spiel from Chivalry Road....I feel let down by some of my colleagues, let down by my union,let down by Chief Officers, let down by Probation Trusts, let down by the press-ironically I dont feel let down by Grayling as he hasnt changed his stance from the beginning-he wants to destroy us...does it take a genius to work out that we should have been out yesterday in a co-ordinated strike with barristers-and where are Unison...in all of this....in fact unison is becoming something of an ironic misnomer....the coming action will register 000.5 on the importance scale unless all APs come out this time and will they do that? Not likely......
ReplyDeleteIn any proposed strike action you always get the 'What's the point?' line from the usual suspects. But now members who have always supported strike action in the past are wondering about the point. There is no suggestion of a series of rolling stikes. We have divided unions representing members. What did the last one-day achieve for Napo members that was not achieved by Unison members? There was already low support for strike action as the turnout was only 46%. This is not indicative of a membership straining at the leash... Isn't like a Charge by the Light Brigade? Pulling out of the Probation Institute would probably make a bigger splash.
ReplyDelete