Omnishambles Update 37

The omnishambles that is TR rumbles on with the 'sifting' of staff between CRC and NPS supposedly now completed, bar appeals. It will come as no surprise that the whole process has been hugely demoralising and influenced many more colleagues to get out, with others determined to do the same at the earliest opportunity. 

Long-term relationships between officers and clients are being forcibly severed, sometimes at only a days notice, and under duress by management. But at least it's nearly done and some stability can return right? Errr no because it's all gone Pete Tong as this recent memo from HR and circulated to all staff in London makes abundantly clear:-

Message from xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Senior HR Business Partner 

The sifting exercise in preparation for the move to the London CRC and NPS is now complete and we are working to consider and determine all appeals. 

At this juncture we are offering an opportunity for staff to express an interest in a transfer to the CRC.  This means that: 

1. If you have been allocated to the NPS and would like to move to the CRC or
2. If you have been allocated to the CRC and would like to move location.

You may respond to this email indicating that you wish to be considered for a transfer. 

The NPS is currently fully resourced.  Any vacancy which subsequently occurs, therefore, in NPS will be recruited to in the normal way via a competitive process. 

Below is a list of the job families and where the vacancies are.  Also included are LDUs where there are a greater number of posts than budget.  People in those boroughs in the specific roles will be given priority should they wish to move. 

If you would like to apply for a transfer please email xxxxxxxxxxxxxx stating where you are currently assigned and where you would like to transfer to.  Expressions of interest via email must be received by Friday, 14 March 2014 in order to be considered. 

Please note this is only open to permanent, substantive staff at the current time.  Resulting vacancies will be advertised shortly at which point agency/interim staff may apply. 

SPO: 

Vacancies:        BDH, NEW, TWR, ENF, CRO, LEW 

Surplus:        HAF, BAR, LAM, GRE 

PO: 

Vacancies:        BDH, NEW, RWF, HAC, TWR, ENF, HAR, CAI, KAR, LAM, MAS, HIL, HOU, CRO, LEW, EAL, HRW 

Surplus:        BEX, GRE, BAR, BRE, HAF, KCW 

PDO: 

Vacancies:        SOU, CRO, HIL, LAM, BRE, KCW, ENF, HAC, BDH 

LDU CO-ORDINATORS 

Vacancies:        BRE/BAR, RWF, KAR/WAN, HIL/HOU, HAC/TWR 

SCA: 

Vacancies:        CAI, CRO/BRO, SOU/LEW, MAS/LAM, KAR/WAN, HAC/TWR 

CA:                BDH, NEW, HAC, TWR, ENF, CAI, HAF, KCW, BAR, BRE, HIL, HOU, BRO, CRO, BEX, HRW 

Surplus:        HAF, LEW, SOU 

Receptionist: 

Vacancies:        CAI, EAL, GRE, HAF, HOU, KAR, KCW, LAM, LEW, SOU, TWR 

Key:

CAI                -        Camden & Islington 
CRO/BRO        -        Croydon/Bromley 
HAR/ENF        -        Haringey/Enfield 
GRE/BEX        -        Greenwich/Bexley 
SOU/LEW        -        Southwark/Lewisham 
NEW                -        Newham 
HAF/KCW        -        Hammersmith & Fulham/Kensington, Westminster & Chelsea

MAS/LAM        -        Merton & Sutton/Lambeth 
BRE/BAR        -        Brent/Barnet 
BDH        -        Barking, Dagenham & Havering 
RWF        -        Redbridge & Waltham Forest 
KAR/WAN        -        Kingston & Richmond/Wandsworth 
EAL/HRW        -        Ealing/Harrow 
HIL/HOU        -        Hillingdon/Hounslow 
HAC/TWR        -        Hackney/Tower Hamlets

There continues to be much painful discussion as to whether NPS or CRC is the 'better' or 'safer' option with opinions very sharply divided on the matter. In truth of course many are at last realising that its all an utter pile of shite that will be going very wrong in a whole host of ways very quickly. But not everyone appears gloomy about the future and I must say this blog I stumbled across by the 'award-winning' ACO Brandt down in Avon and Somerset fair took my breath away for its upbeat management view of the future CRC-style:-  

The answer for me overwhelmingly was that the CRC was the right route for me. I see the challenge of setting up a new company as exciting. The promised freedoms of less oversight with a focus on outcomes is welcome after years of process measurement targets. The CRC will exist as a company in its own right and will continue to do so after share sale, if in fact the shares are sold.

The chance to develop completely new ways of working, obtaining funding from other sources to prevent harm from ever happening is attractive. If we can put together programmes of work to better educate the young away from violence in all its forms so it becomes as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving it will save thousands from harm. We do have these skills in Probation, why should we wait to use them until after the offence has occurred?

I look forward to developing much stronger links with a whole range of community groups each of which can be built into an individualised plan for supporting and changing the people with whom we will be working. The CRC will need to build its own assurance models for ensuring that the groups are fit for purpose; and publicly support those who do offer the most effective support.

I welcome the chance for good staff to develop without the perception that the only route through the service is via Probation Officer training. I have had the privilege of working with a number of very skilled and able managers who have developed a career through alternative routes.

The CRC does not come without its own challenges. The majority of perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Abuse will be supervised by the CRC. The majority of serious further offences will come from the cases supervised by the CRC. The CRC will be held to account to a contract. The challenge for NOMS will be in how they write the contract and if they really do let go of the CRC. I look forward to seeing the first iteration of the contract and governance documents. I am quite happy with the concept of working to a contract. I do it already with my employer and nearly every aspect of our private lives is governed similarly; having a car serviced, having repair work done at home etc.

If after the allocation of cases and staff has been resolved the CRC finds itself with a too rich mix of staff it will have the option to seek further contracts to more fully utilise the skills of the staff.

For me the CRC is the place that I should be. I have heard other staff appraise their own situation with equal thought focusing on their work developing Public Protection work, integrated approaches to managing risk through MAPPA and for them the NPS is the right choice.

Both are very uncertain. Both will have their challenges and both will have their rewards. The least compelling argument I have heard is “I want to stay in probation”.

Without knowing which crap outsourcing company who knows fuck all about probation will in all probability end up running this CRC and giving them orders, it beats me how guys can write this bollocks and still sleep at night?  

Finally, these two comments from yesterday give further insight into what's going on:-

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.

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

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 want 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), it 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.  

PS - I've just spotted this over on the Napo Forum website:-

My colleague and friend today attended the TR training and it was apparently made clear that participants were expected to assist in designing the 'new way'. An odd method of training, invite the participants, no sorry I mean force the participants (it is mandatory), then introduce the new tools to be used at Court and then expect the participants to fill in the gaps that were quite obviously missing in the training because the poor trainers didn't have the answers. In short I was pleased to hear the participants soon caught on to the fact that they were expected to be a part of designing the Grayling way and refused to assist in filling in the gaps for him.