With only days to go before Chris Grayling's brave new probation world comes into effect, perhaps the public, and indeed potential bidders, might like to hear how things are progressing so far:-
Email received today from my trust stating 'critical training' for 29th and 30th May 2014. 3 members of staff must attend from each office to cascade essential information to their office colleagues. A few days before the split and the following issues are still requiring 'critical training' to be frantically arranged:
Case administration
Info sharing between NPS and CRC
Template problems on delius
Faults and 'work arounds'
This is very basic stuff and its still not ready, tested and even an acknowledgement that there are faults still in the systems at the 11th hour but we will show you some 'work arounds'. Whatever happened to the promise that split wouldn't take place until safe to do so? Plus - files haven't been split - still laying about all over the place. Now would be a good time for the inspectorate to check how info is being handled by probation. It's a mess at the min.
Plus no way in my office will all cases be transferred between NPS and CRC by 2/06/14. Plus reports for court being missed, and quality rubbish due to the haste they are being produced, many clearly seeing large chunks of the reports being copy and pasted from previous reports with minimal collateral info being gathered, which doesn't serve the sentencing process, protect the public and paints an inaccurate pictures of the service user - totally unprofessional and any probation officer knowingly putting these type of reports to the courts is a disgrace (really need a strong judge or magistrate to question probation court officers the sub standard of oral and fast track reports).
**********
Reports are rubbish especially low/medium FDRs and I don't just mean court ones but those done in field teams too. I use these reports as a base for my OASys assessment and there are only crumbs of information there - authors are ticking that things are problems but then not substantiating how they arrive at this conclusion in the body of the report. Eg, if Johnny is showing anti-discriminatory attitudes can you not just tick 'yes' can you give a brief example of how you arrive at this conclusion?? Quality of work's crap and I'm finding that I'm having to return Orders to court as various requirements are unworkable for one reason or another.
***********
I have noticed an increase in FDR female reports being written with very little information. One case I had managed previously, very angry violent young woman with huge child safeguarding issues had a very poor report with no background information whatsoever for a violent offence. I fear this practice will increase because of work pressure, to the detriment of our female service users.
***********
New PO posts seem to be appearing left right and centre for NPS side. CRC side inundated with cases at rate of 6 or more per PO a week. Where do they all come from? Many/most are DV cases - and now DV checks with police at PSR or start Order stage have been officially abandoned because, we assume, Police quite rightly won't share their public protection data with any tom, dick or harry. So risk management is compromised and no clarity of past behaviours can be established. Children, partners, staff all at increased risk because of this catastrophic loss of data. Still, when the children's services have been sold off it will just mean more profit I guess.
**********
Man appeared at 3.50pm in a far flung probation office, I am Duty Officer. My first duty in my new relocated CRC Team. He said he had been instructed to report by the Court anytime between 2 and 4pm the following day. We had no notification and weren't expecting him. Left him in the waiting room for ages while I was trying to find out about him, he was getting really wound up. Turns out he's a high risk sex offender who had appeared by videolink the day before after being RIC'd for breach of SOPO. The videolink broke down so he was given reporting instructions via the prison. He was released and spent a night sleeping rough before attending to see me. He had no connection with our area, apart from committing the offence there. Luckily it was late night reporting in the area he was from 21 miles away so I gave him £11 for bus fare and sent him on his way to report at 6.30pm. He didn't get there on time and spent another night sleeping rough before reporting in the right office the next morning. Thankfully no offences happened as far as we know. One phone call from the Court could have saved this but they're not allowed to ring us. It all has to go on Delius and we don't find out til they arrive on the doorstep. When CRC and NPS split computer systems, it will be even worse. And more dangerous.
**********
First case arrived to me with a report in the new system, done as an FDR on a basic layer OASys. Absolutely no content in the OASys apart from a very brief Offence Analysis. All previous records on this Tier 4 previous IOM client wiped out. Risk of Harm section only related to the current offence and no reference to previous behaviour or victims despite him being known to us for 12 years. Dangerous.
**********
Supposed to have all my medium risk cases transferred to CRC by end of week. I have already received several high risk ones to replace them. Problem is these high risk cases are very demanding and asking me questions only their previous PO can answer. I'm looking discredited already and I can't even remember their names. Totally stressed. An meanwhile I'm suddenly getting inundated with drug related PSRs because none of the POs in IOM, DRR or PPO teams got into the NPS and now aren't allowed to write court reports anymore. What an incredible loss of skill and experience!! It's utter chaotic madness!!
**********
I sent off a Parole Report today that was garbage. I was under such stress I just needed to get rid of it. Thought it would just be easier to apologise at the oral hearing and do the best I can with their questions. It's crushing to think my work has come to this. Feels like I'm just waiting for the next SFO. I look around the office and people are just trying to stay sane. Nobody dares ask for any goodwill from colleagues. What used to be a highly organised and professional workforce is just trying to get by and lurching from day to day.
**********
Emails exchanged yesterday between NPS colleague new in post in a new LDU area. Sent yesterday to me now CRC 'partner': (Not verbatim but otherwise absolutely true).
NPS: Hi CRC person, I've got some of your High Risk of Harm cases, can you give me a bit of a brief synposis on them?
CRC: I'm not going to have time today, and I'm off til Tuesday next week but will do my best! Can you remind me who you've got from me?
NPS: I don't really know, the manager is on leave for a week and all I've got is a handwritten note with surnames on. I don't know who they are.
CRC: You are suddenly prioritised. Send me the surnames and I'll give you a quick heads up.
***********
Life sentenced prisoners transferred during parole windows. People refusing to take cases until they have everything, including activity requirements up to date yet dumping high risk cases without assessments or urgent mappa forms completed because 'I'm not allowed to do high risk stuff anymore'. Forms that make no sense but take hours because 'the systems are bedding in'. Meanwhile, management plan to make sure we can fiddle the figures and prove it's all working great? Dump professional judgement and reinstate national standards. Prioritise oasys and record keeping so the targets are hit and bugger the needs of the cases or the staff. It's a nightmare.
How are all these new posts being funded at a time of year-on-year budget cuts? Have the new ROM/DOM/Deputy Directors been to Wonga?
ReplyDeleteas always seems to be plenty of money for management but people who actually do the work cut to the bone
ReplyDeleteI can't remember the last time I interviewed a PSR case with both a list of previous convictions and CPS documents. The Court teams are under incredible pressure and just can't the information to us.
ReplyDeleteSurely that needs to be clearly stated in a finished report explaining the consequent effect such shortage of information at a critical time (interview be that an office or a subsequent hv) has on your assessment and ultimately the professional opinion you can offer the court, leaving the court responsible for sentencing with an inadequate report? - Should they choose to sentence when a PSR assessment is acknowledged by its author to be incomplete - such comments are an aid to lawyers and can be used to support applications for an appeal or an appeal itself.
DeleteBeing an officer of the court is far more than churning out reports, so a court can 'go through the motions' of justice.
Fairly early in my career - certainly within first couple of years (I qualified in 1975) I learned that I could, in appropriate situations - pre-hearing invite a defence solicitor to apply for an adjournment/postponement of hearing and also ultimately on a few occasions to submit a one paragraph report, explaining reasons a full report is not available - that to me seemed the professional way.
I know that by 2003 some young colleagues lacked the 'professionalism' to stake such a stand - but it never did me any harm and aided a good reputation to be built in the courts where I worked regularly.
It was not always popular with managers, but I believe probation officers have a higher responsibility to 'justice' than just to do what managers ask or direct.
Jeremy Wright at Justice Committe in March 2014:
ReplyDeleteQ560 John McDonnell: The letter dated 16 March from the Secretary of State, if we go to the third paragraph, says: "…we have now reached agreement on core issues, resulting in Probation Trade Unions and the employers’ side ratifying the National Agreement on Staff Transfer at a meeting of the probation national collective bargaining machinery on 29 January 2014. Trade Unions have also withdrawn all local trade disputes."
...Napo’s response to me was that actually there has been no agreement reached on staff transfer: "However, the staff transfer scheme is still under negotiation..." The local disputes have not been withdrawn...
Jeremy Wright: I do not accept that, as you will perhaps not be surprised to hear. Let me deal with some of those issues specifically. As to the issue of local disputes, it certainly was our impression that the disputes at local level had been withdrawn, and indeed the national negotiating machinery, which you have referred to, issued a statement following ratification of the agreement saying, "Disputes at a local level are now withdrawn." So it is something of a surprise to me that Napo’s view is that local disputes have not been withdrawn. I am sure you will appreciate, Mr McDonnell, I have only seen the letter to the Chair from Napo as I was coming into this Committee. I have not had the chance to check all of the details, but that is my clear understanding. Secondly, in relation to appeals, there is a small number of staff for whom the results of their appeals are still outstanding. We think that is in the region of 20 individuals. You should also know that I see that Napo say that 800 appeals have been lodged by staff. To put that in context, that is about 4% of staff who have lodged an appeal. In relation to grievances, I obviously cannot comment on exactly where all of these grievances have reached, but it is the case that grievances can continue beyond the key dates that the Chair has already referred to. All of those do not have to be completed, as I understand it, by 1 June.
The broader point, if I may say so, is that it does not come as a surprise to me that Napo do not support these reforms and do not wish it to be thought that they do. No impression has been sought to be given that they do support these reforms. What we have said, which as I understand it is entirely factually accurate, is that the national negotiating body has reached agreement on specific things connected to the transfer of staff. That includes "continuity of service, pension eligibility and an enhanced voluntary redundancy scheme," as set out in the Napo letter. I do not think there is any dispute about that.
Equally, there is no dispute that Napo do not support these changes. They have made that very clear and I understand that. I do not agree with them, but I understand exactly their point of view and I am sure no one is misled into thinking, or has ever been misled into thinking, that they do.
Q561 John McDonnell: You agree that the staff transfer scheme has not been agreed.
Jeremy Wright: I do not think we have ever sought to say that anything has been agreed other than what clearly has been agreed, which are the specific details of what protection staff will get when the transfer takes place, which, I may add, are extremely generous, so I am not surprised they have been agreed. But there has never been any attempt, as far as I am concerned, to mislead anybody about that.
Q562 John McDonnell: So the expression "Trade Unions have also withdrawn all local trade disputes" is inaccurate.
Jeremy Wright: That, as I have said-and I will check and of course come back to the Committee-"
Did he check? Did we get an apology?
Has NAPO come out fighting - seeking apologies and accuracy - doesn't look like it?
DeleteI do wonder if some of these 'anonymous' repeated negative unsubstantiated criticism are really Grayling minions, trying to wreak disunity, knowing that such disunity - or at least publicly expressed disunity, makes the destruction of probation easier.
DeleteWe need posts that show a way forward.
Meanwhile Napo seem to have sorted out the new website and I have just seen a newish ({apparently undated - to my eyes} may have been written days ago) blog from Ian Lawrence and the -promised yesterday - Press Release about the PAC report.
https://www.napo.org.uk/blogs/caveat-emptor-0
https://www.napo.org.uk/news/napo-welcomes-public-accounts-committee-report
No Andrew from where I sit it's not a conspiracy, they are invariably honestly held criticisms that Napo HQ have decided are best dealt with either by ignoring them or by spurious arguments about 'accountability' or accusations of 'cyber bullying'.
DeleteHaving said that, it was only as a result of pressure from this blog that Napo decided to send out regular emails and reluctantly decided to begin the Judicial Review process.
I have always tried to support Napo and only ever offered constructive criticism, but unofficial and informal feedback has only ever been negative from Napo HQ.
Seeing as I believe the grounds for criticism of Napo HQ are growing and I'm viewed as 'unaccountable' - together with the thousands of contributors - the dialogue will have to be continued in public.
As far as I'm concerned the fight against TR continues and I refuse to accept that criticism of Napo HQ is hindering that process - on the contrary, if anyone at Chivalry Road cares to listen to grass root opinion it just might galvanise them into some bloody action.
I am reassured that Grayling minions are not posting in droves - though I did not suggest conspiracy - folk are all entitled to express opinions and to encourage others to change theirs.
DeleteI have not been to any Napo meeting for almost a decade now and remain an associate retired member - receiving emails from Napo Nationally and my branch - Greater London. I know that ultimately (rightly) I have no vote and also know that, partly due to my disability {dyspraxia/dyslexia} I can lose focus in a public meeting and in anger end up ranting - there is so much to be angry about - I do not think publicly spoken rants from me will help - I found it difficult to contain my rage when I visited my MP at The House of Commons a few months back!
I agree about supporting the Napo process to oppose TR - what I am astounded at is the apparent way the NEC and General Meetings seem to not be dictating policy - particularly over such as the Probation Institute.
In the long term I could be a very strong advocate for an Institute - and it was needed way back - certainly at the time social workers need to register to practise - but we do have in Napo a professional remit via the Professional Committee and there should only be engagement - formally by Napo with an Institute - if Napo somehow links that work into the Institute - not an issue to be resolved without thorough investigation and considered decision - yes obviously right for Napo to be at least on the sidelines - if others insist on starting PI in the way they have (top down - not from the practitioners) but to appoint a director - seems crass - I just cannot fathom why an NEC might agree to that or those NEC members not experience votes of no confidence from their branches.
I know it is difficult to direct Napo policy from outside the national committee structure - but it has happened before - the constitution was refashioned in the late 70s and 80s to make it ever possible - after all only two ordinary members are needed to propose a motion to a General Meeting - I am sure were I practising now - that is the route I would take - if necessary to try to call an SGM at the initiative of the ordinary members - that has happened before - late 70s- around the time the old London Branch was voted as being ultra vires - but this is a dyspraxic digression.
As I have written somewhere - if every senior probation manager phoned up their local BBC radio station today and reported the details of one of the dangers they are overseeing but cannot make work safely - the ultimate result would be TR would be suspended before 31st May - I don't know if the life of The Trusts would be extended - it maybe that in the short term local probation is saddled by management from NOMS - but urgently there must be local oversight - in the same way as happens with other public services - ideally appointed on behalf - if not by local people such as Magistrates - and Local Authorities and Employees and possibly even clients or ex-clients.
The critisism that NAPO attract is legitimate and deserving.
DeleteYesterday the PAC published quite a damning report regarding TR.
Vera Baird the Northumbria PCC took the opportunity to release a press statment calling for TR to be scrapped because its dangerous and ill thought out.
Did anyone hear a peep from the union thats called its membership to strike action previously to try and derail TR?
I arguee, that when a PPC demonstrates a far greater interest in calling for a halt to TR then the probations own union, then there are serious failings that need urgent attention, and any critisism these failings attract are fair, honest, and justified.
Heres a link about what Vera Baird said, maybe someone (maybe Andrew?), would be good enough to post the link to NAPOs press response to the PAC report. I'd be very grateful. Thanks.
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/local-news/pcc-vera-baird-criticises-plans-7149730
Police and Crime Commissioner Vera Baird has criticised plans to break up the probation service and bring in private organisations to manage offenders.
DeleteMrs Baird, PCC for Northumbria, warned: “In Northumbria we have one of the best probation services in the country and despite the efforts of many, we are watching the Government dismantle it piece by piece.”
She was speaking after a cross-party committee criticised plans to axe the nation’s 35 probation trusts and replace them with one national probation service, responsible for managing high risk offenders, and 21 privately-managed “community rehabilitation companies”.
The Minister of Justice is considering tenders from firms and organisations. But the Commons Public Accounts Committee warned previous attempts by the Ministry of Justice to contract out services to the private sector had run into difficulties. It said: “The Ministry’s poor track record of managing procurements and contracts raises particular concerns given the scale and ambition of this programme.”
The MPs also warned that “the scale, complexity and pace of the reforms give rise to risks around value for money”.
Ms Baird urged the Government to rethink the plan. She warned: “I have said for months that the Ministry of Justice plans for probation are wrong.”
But Justice minister Jeremy Wright said: “Each year there are more than half a million crimes committed by those who have broken the law before, and 50,000 of the most prolific offenders are released on to the streets, totally unsupervised and free to go back to their criminal ways.”
Surely even Jeremy Wright gets tired of speaking the same old bollocks?
DeleteI bet he has that phrase as his answerphone message to save time.
Napo Press Release
DeleteToday the Public Accounts Committee published their first report scrutinising the Secretary of State's, Chris Graylings plans to privatise up to 70% of the Probation Service. Napo welcomes the Committee's conclusions and recommendations which echo the concerns raised by Napo and other stakeholders. Napo has continued to raise our concerns over the plans with the government which we believe will undermine public protection, place the public at risk and allow private companies to profit from working with offenders.
Ian Lawrence, General Secretary said "we have said all along that these plans are an untried and untested social experiment that simply cannot work in the timetable laid down by the Secretary of State. These plans are being rushed through to meet an election timetable and are not in the best interests of the public and the taxpayer. We welcome the Ministers commitment not to go ahead unless he is satisfied it is safe to do so. However, we have real concerns that they will not sufficiently test the new organisations before selling off the shares to private companies. We would urge the PAC to insist that these tests are carried out over a period of time and include testing the supervision of the under 12 month custodial population. Something that has not been done before and must be evaluated prior to any bids being accepted."
Napo is receiving evidence on a daily basis that the split of staff that has already been implemented is not working. The service currently has 500 vacancies across England and Wales and the splitting of staff into two organisations is bringing the service to its knees.
Ian Lawrence said" there is simply not enough staff in either organisation to make this work. We are aware of some offices having just one Probation Officer allocated to the National Probation Service and therefore carrying caseloads of over 80 high risk of harm cases. This is just not workable in terms of public safety and staff welfare. The bureaucracy that has been introduced to make these plans work have left staff using more time completing forms and less time to deliver services to the Courts and to supervising offenders. We urge the Government to halt its plans until there is a proper infrastructure in place."
I posted both and Ian Lawrence's blog somewhere earlier today (I have short term memory problems - sorry) - probably Twitter - I do not routinely post other articles here any-more - just links and my own comments
Delete"The criticism that NAPO attract is legitimate and deserving"
Delete- yes it often is - but I am not sure there is much integrity in publishing it anonymously and perhaps it is best taken up via the organisation. Also it is important to try to criticise in ways that advance matters rather than appear to others as a sign of disunity or perhaps prompt the criticized to feel crushed - as probation workers we know all about that - we do not build constructive relationships with those who have caused serious harm by communicating in ways that they feel further diminished - nonetheless neither do we minimise the harm their crimes have caused. A difficult balance to maintain - one any successful manager surely understands?
I accept at times I have been VERY critical of Napo - but I hope not anonymously and when I do it on the Napo (our) website - I am a member since 1974- , Napo staff have access to my email address and know my exact identity - they have removed some of my posts in the past.
It is also possible to post responses to the General Secretary's Blog - something I have done on occasions since the blog was started years ago.
Sadly Napo Central Office is under-resourced to fulfil all that members need of it, and we (in Napo) seem not to have yet managed to cope adequately with the 24/7 nature of the Internet - something for (I think it is called) The Communications Committee and NEC and General Meeting to tackle.
The new website seems a considerable improvement - though it will take us all time to become familiar with it. Sadly there was a problem posting up Tania Bassett's press release yesterday and she regrettably Tweeted that it had been done - which as far she was concerned was probably true - but at the point she wrote that on Twitter it was not visible to readers whereas a Tweet is instantly visible - rather like this blog post!
That is more than enough from me - for now at any rate!
"I am not sure there is much integrity in publishing it anonymously and perhaps it is best taken up via the organisation. Also it is important to try to criticise in ways that advance matters rather than appear to others as a sign of disunity or perhaps prompt the criticized to feel crushed"
DeleteAndrew there is a significant danger here in the discussion just going round in circles. The reality is that for what ever reason people only feel comfortable commenting anonymously on this blog and have decided not to use the official Napo forum.
I for one have no confidence at all regarding 'taking up issues within the organisation'. There's just no time and the organisation is riddled with cliques, cabals, ego's, etc etc, not to mention death by a thousand bureaucratic procedures and constitutional crap.
Yes it's sad. Yes it shouldn't be. Yes it might seem disloyal, but we are where we are and action is necessary now! The inevitable painful post-mortem is for another day and I'm quite sure it will be painful, but lets just get on with the fight, with or without any great assistance from Napo HQ.
The press release was hours late simply because they had completely missed the importance of the PAC report, having sacked Harry Fletcher. They are not under-staffed at Chivalry Road - they are under-managed, rudder-less and inefficient.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06894/privatisation-of-the-probation-service-whats-happened-so-far
ReplyDeletePrivatisation of the probation service: what’s happened so far? - Commons Library Standard Note
Basically they have no idea its about egypt
The Ministry of Justice published its final proposals for the reform of the probation service in May 2013, featuring the controversial plans to abolish probation trusts and to contract out the majority of probation work to organisations from the private and voluntary sectors. What progress has been made in implementing the reforms?
ReplyDeleteThe MoJ’s original timetable stated that bidding for probation contracts would start in summer 2013 and that new providers would be announced by autumn 2014.
The latest announcement from the MoJ (in February 2014) stated that they were in formal negotiations with around 30 bidders. The current timetable is for contracts to be awarded by the end of 2014 and for services to go live in 2015.
Oh dear - bad link as you say!
DeleteThe area I work in isn't fairing much better - a lot of the same issues that have been mentioned in the post - too many staff in NPS and and the High ROSH cases having been transferred without us being able to do the same for CRC assessed cases. Admin processes a complete mess.
ReplyDeleteStaff are under massive pressure and struggling - all leading to a loss of motivation to produce the normal high quality work; the general feeling is that this mess is not of our creation, so why work all the additional hours for no extra pay to try to sort it out, particularly when it's plain it will take major organisational changes that are out of our remit to get it right.
It's soul destroying to see colleagues who previously displayed a real sense of pride and responsibility to ensure their work focused on reducing risk, whilst also focusing on being fair and beneficial to the clients needs, being lost due to this dangerous organisational split.
Also, whilst on mismanagement of the split - our area currently hasn't got enough trained SOTP tutors because it went with MoJ projected staffing figures - even though they knew it couldn't work in practice. We've been told to continue working on 1:1 basis until they sort something out - all I can tell my cases about the programme is that you'll be on it soon. In the meantime, sentence expiry dates are looming! Really, you couldn't make it up.
SOTP: Sex Offender Treatment Programme for any non probation bods out there. Very dangerous situation indeed. IMO cases should be returned to court as unworkable. Perhaps people would start listening then. We need to stop papering over the cracks. If management say no, go to local press.
Deletehow did that happen, SOTP tutors should have gone to NPS ??
DeleteThe latest trained SOTP tutors in our area work split roles. One also had an IOM half caseload, therefore auto allocated CRC.
DeleteI'm a PO I'm programmes, assigned to Crc arbitrarily because we deliver the full range of programmes. We're told to basically ignore the split and carry to with the current group for the foreseeable.
DeleteIn my area we have always provided 18 PSR slots to the court team for the forthcoming quarter - this I am told will be increasing to 25 - and simultaneously something serious is happening at Court - the clients are arriving before the paperwork, which requires us to put them off another week in order to read up about them and the charges etc. So you can see it now - as happened yesterday - a man adj for a report on 9.5.2014 was provided his PSR slot for 20.5.2014 but he arrives and we have nowt to go on, so have to put off and this leaves less than 5 days to research and write the report - meanwhile the week before last's clients are coming around again. This happened to a colleague last week - the charges involved indecent images of children and face to snout sexual activity with an animal - it's shit and it'll only get worse.
ReplyDeleteMy best wishes to all my colleagues - CRC or NPS - as we are all feeling it, whilst Mr Grayling wanders around making knee jerk reactionary policy up on the hoof. If only he would respond to the warnings from people at the sharp end, as opposed to playing to the public gallery.
Oh, I forgot - I suggested in open plan yesterday, that rather than work our socks off trying to get reports to Court on time, we should simply submit a nil - explaining why it's not there!!!! The Courts should be getting the full picture and not some contrived and emotionally costly - and as some have said "garbage" reports.
ReplyDeleteThe new refresh has been partially published. The MOJ are not going to publish who has withdrawn from a bidding area but they have published who has expanded their bids. This of course does not mean that they have not just swapped bidding areas. Sodexo, crr partnership,mtc amey, catch 22 rehabilitation,home group,seetec, geo group, ingeous,sentinel offender services turning point have all opted for additional lots.
ReplyDeleteWhen's the last time psrs were any good ?written by a robot from a robot
ReplyDeleteI used the OASys template for a PSR once. The result was so poor that I refused to do it again. When the quality of the information that comes out of the system is worse than that which goes in, you know you have a big problem!
DeleteI genuinely don't believe there is a general problem with the quality of PSRs other than those caused by the lack of time to research them properly. I have seen excellent reports from newly qualified officers, and shoddy ones from very experienced staff. It's evident that some people enjoy writing them and others don't - any sensible organisation would have taken staff preference into account in restructuring the service, but they've gone and got the wrong people for the wrong jobs.
"I used the OASys template for a PSR once. The result was so poor that I refused to do it again."
DeleteI'm sorry but you've got me there! How can you write a PSR and not use the OASys template?
Every FDR in my Trust is done on Word documents, as far as I know. The last time I wrote a full SDR I used a Word template as well, so that was easy enough - just a bit of cut and paste from OASys and then changing it to make it readable. The courts don't know the difference, a hard copy goes on the file, and it's much easier to locate an electronic copy in a folder on a shared drive than all the fiddly clicking through OASys.
DeleteAdmittedly that was a while ago, as I'm in an OM team and we only write reports on our own cases - and obviously mine never re-offend ;-) For all I know the template has been removed - I'm going into the CRC on 1st June and probably won't write another PSR for a very long time, if ever; there's no way I'm going back into the NPS and losing over a decade's worth of service.
Sorry to change topic but I believe the judgement on the stayed fraud trial is due to be announced.
ReplyDeleteI feel certain the appeal will be dismissed causing massive embarressment for Grayling.
As DIY appears to be the only way of raising the TR omnishambles profile, maybe all those that are willing could e-mail their local papers with their concerns and give a taste of whats really going on, and respond to any comments column of papers that carry the story.
I'm certainly going to.
http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKKBN0E10RV20140521?irpc=932
DeleteLONDON (Reuters) - Britain's financial regulator on Wednesday won an appeal against a court decision to throw out a landmark fraud case because some of the defendants had been unable to find lawyers willing to represent them in court at new reduced legal aid rates.
DeleteThe Court of Appeal said the previous ruling involved errors of law or principle and was not reasonable. It ordered the case to be resumed in the lower Crown Court.
The decision by a Crown Court judge to dismiss the Financial Conduct Authority's case over an alleged land-banking scam has become the focus of a heated debate over senior lawyers' pay after government cuts of around 30 percent to the legal aid budget for very high cost cases.
The Court of Appeal judges said although they could not become involved in a dispute between lawyers and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) about appropriate salaries, it was concerned about the affect of the row on the country's criminal justice system and urged both sides to resolve their differences.
"... it is of fundamental importance that the MoJ led by the Lord Chancellor (Justice Minister Chris Grayling) and the professions continue to try to resolve the impasse that presently stands in the way of the delivery of justice in the most complex of cases: this will require effort by both sides.
"The maintenance of a criminal justice system of which we can be proud depends on a sensible resolution of the issues that have arisen," they said in their judgment.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), caught in the middle of the protracted row, welcomed the decision, said it was committed to pursue criminal action in appropriate cases and was pleased the case could now proceed to trial.
The FCA's case, dubbed Operation Cotton, unravelled after five defendants failed to find senior lawyers prepared to represent them in court at new legal aid rates.
Prosecutors of financial crime cases are concerned that the dispute between the so-called Bar (barristers) and MoJ, which has sparked mass walkouts by lawyers, will leave some defendants unable to receive a fair trial if lawyers boycott so-called VHCCs (Very High Cost Cases) because of legal aid cuts.
(Reporting by Kirstin Ridley, editing by Steve Slater and Jane Merriman)
This is good news for justice (as it was starting to look like this was going to be another way that dodgy rich people escaped the consequences of their actions), and bad news for the Ministry of Justice, since the problem is still well and truly in Grayling's lap - and the headlines.
DeleteApparently the MOJ and NPS have come to an agreement that current electronic monitoring court staff will be 'temporaily seconded to the NPS so they can continue their duties'..... Bit of an insult to staff forced over to CRC! Another fine example of lack of thought and preparation before this shambles was put into action.
ReplyDeleteThis is a statement that was submitted by the staff side to the final JNCC and circulated to all members. It explains why some Trusts will not be missed.
ReplyDeleteBRANCH STATEMENT TO JNCC
Primarily, members only contact us when there are issues that they need support with so it may be that we, as the Branch representatives, can gain a negative view of employee/employer relations within Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. However, we are aware that there have been ongoing concerns over a number of years regarding how it is felt that many staff have been treated unfairly and processes have been manipulated. From decisions made by decision makers who are not impartial through to manipulations of process including the most recent failure to hear individual staff grievances, we have observed an increasing number of unfair decisions and actions being made by HPT against staff.
We believe that this is reflected by the increasing trend to disregard and even ignore staff representatives in consultation and negotiation practices. There are numerous occasions when consultation has only taken place after repeated requests and after consultation issues have already been actioned. From changes to job roles in the past, our history of job evaluation issues through to the current concerns about lack of consultation on local issues there has been a regular pattern of complete indifference and disrespect for staff views.
It is unfortunate that this has been the case as staff within HPT are the organisation’s greatest asset. Without the dedication, passion and goodwill of staff HPT would not have been able to achieve and surpass the excellent performance and service quality that has been consistently delivered in recent years. Staff have had to endure the gradual withdrawal of many terms and conditions of employment including the removal of travel allowances, little consultation on changes to working practices such as those imposed on UPW staff, administration and programmes staff whilst suffering major organisational changes such as the short-sighted transition to Trust and the Lean experiment.
As representatives we have seen at close quarters the impact that these changes have had on staff wellbeing and morale. When we have tried to work with HPT to address the issues, for example when undertaking the substantial Workload Stress Survey, the findings and recommendations were disregarded and ignored. In fact, despite the identified issues HPT exacerbated much of the low morale being experienced by introducing more punitive measures such as the never agreed Health and Well Being Policy and stricter dress code.
On one occasion a comment was made to a representative by a senior member of HPT regarding staff in HPT generally failing to respect the hierarchy in HPT leading to discontent when for example grievances were regularly not upheld. This comment is indicative of the general lack of understanding and respect for a workforce who are trained to challenge inappropriate and unfair behaviour. It is unfortunate that many staff, for example middle managers, have felt compelled to implement policies and procedures that they felt were inherently unfair. Feedback regularly indicated that staff have felt increasingly censored and unable to challenge any issue that was felt to be unjust.
We are hopeful that future relations with the CRC and NPS managements will be a much more positive and mutually beneficial experience. Indications thus far, are that consultation and negotiation will be respected and honoured with the aim of achieving successful objectives. Working together in an environment of mutual respect and understanding is always the preferred method and will hopefully ensure positive outcomes in the future.
What was punitive about the Health & Wellbeing policy? (I'm not a member of HPT staft, just interested in the different ways we've been screwed over in different parts of the country.
DeleteTurning the Screws: The Hampshire Way:
DeleteHampshire Probation Trust renounced the nationally agreed sickness management policy and forcibly imposed a health and wellbeing policy. The policy has the ring of denial – no room in the title for sickness anymore. They should have gone the whole hog and outsourced to Atos.
This new policy is all about the race to the bottom in terms and conditions and appearing sexy to prying, private sector eyes.
Under this new policy there is a rolling 4-year period for counting sickness absence; an incremental approach to managing sickness has been discarded - an employee may be compelled to go straight to a stage 4 dismissal hearing. This policy will make it easier to sack sick and disabled workers. This will save costs associated with redundancy and it will appeal to the private sector.
Thanks Netnipper.
DeleteTheres another article in 'Third Sector' that I'm having difficulty accessing that looks interesting, but I think this makes an interesting read.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.civilsociety.co.uk/finance/news/content/17492/probation_reforms_is_significant_risk_for_charities_says_report#.U3yd_Ltw35Y
http://www.therugbyobserver.co.uk/2014/05/21/news-Probation-service-struggling-ahead-of-reform---National-Association-of-Probation-Officers-NAPO-union-claims-106910.html
DeleteGovernment plans to contract out probation services to the voluntary sector carry “significant risks”, Margaret Hodge, chair of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has warned today.
DeleteThe PAC has today published Probation: landscape review, a report into planned reforms of the probation service, which will see 200,000 medium and low risk prisoners transferred to Community Rehabilitation Companies run by private and voluntary providers. The report highlights several concerns with the pace and scale of these reforms.
A number of charities and social enterprises are on the 30-strong shortlist to be prime contractors on the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme, including Catch 22, the Shaw Trust, the St Giles Trust, Crime Reduction Initiatives and Bridges Ventures.
"We recognise that the reform programme is still developing, but the scale, complexity and pace of the changes are very challenging," Hodge said in a statement accompanying the reports. "The MoJ’s extremely poor track record of contracting out – such as the recent high-profile failures on its electronic tagging contracts – give rise to particular concern."
Hodge also said that plans to pay providers through a combination of payment by results and fee for service was “complex, untested and remains subject to agreement with providers”.
Hodge also said that the MoJ needed to ensure that all new contracts contained open-book accounting arrangements - a process which involves sharing financial information about contract delivery freely.
Hodge made similar comments last week at CFG’s annual conference where she also said the Freedom of Information Act should apply to all organisations delivering government services, including charities.
She said that large contracting organisations such as Capita and G4S were happy to follow these processes, and charities should be too.
“It’s hugely important that charities should provide public services,” she said. “But it needs total transparency and openness.”
The PAC is the second Parliamentary committee this year to raise concerns after carefully examining the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation plans to contract out supervision for medium and low risk offenders to voluntary sector and provider providers on a payment-by-results basis.
In January, Alan Beith, chair of the Justice Committee, said there was a lack of information on the information about the risks the government might encounter during implementation of its programme and the steps it will take to mitigate the risks.
Other parties have also raised strong concerns about Transforming Rehabilitation in the past few weeks.
Last month, the Social Market Foundation raised concerns about charities' involvement with the payment-by-results element of the programme.
In a report called Breaking Bad Habits, it said that charities will be “playing a dangerous game of roulette” if they are paid by results.
It warned their would be cash flow problems because of the delay between investing in a service and being paid for results.
SMF also said there was a risk charities “will underachieve and recoup only part – or potentially none – of the costs already incurred”.
“A principal rationale for the reforms is that expertise from charities and social enterprises can be brought in to help turn around the lives of offenders,” said the report.
“The research shows that smaller providers will be playing a dangerous game of roulette if they are paid by results on the reoffending rate.”
Sir Stuart Etherington, chief executive of the NCVO, last week also cautioned against large government contracting programmes.
DeleteHe told the CFG conference that the Work Programme had been “the biggest disaster ever foisted on the voluntary sector”.
Etherington said that for the relationship between the charity sector and government to work, “we need to change the procurement landscape”, and that at the moment there were too many examples of poor government contracting.
He said the sector is shrinking because of disproportionate cuts in government funding going to the sector.
CRACKS are appearing in the supervision of criminals as staff struggle to adapt to government reforms.
DeleteThat is the view of the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) which continues to oppose the part-privatisation of the probation service, which takes effect from next month.
According to the union, experienced staff have left in vast numbers ahead of the changes and he called for their introduction to be slowed down.
"Some teams are really struggling to work as normal resulting in some offenders not being seen as often as they should," said Dave Adams, chair of NAPO Warwickshire.
"This, coupled with the recruitment of new and inexperienced staff, is resulting in significant problems. Experienced staff are drowning under the workload and do not have the time to support new colleagues."
From June 1 responsibility for the supervision of around 160,000 medium and low risk offenders a year will be passed to 21 privately-run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs).
Overall £450million in contracts have been offered to private and voluntary sector organisations on a payment-by-results basis.
Responsibility for 31,000 high-risk offenders each year will remain in the public sector with the formation of a new National Probation Service.
Rugby MP Mark Pawsey has backed the changes, telling us back in January £4billion a year was being spent on prisons and probation without breaking the cycle of crime and offending.
He added many of the reforms were introduced by the previous Labour government.
But NAPO has concerns adding market economies into probation would mean corners are cut and re-offending would increase.
Former Rugby MP Jeremy Wright, the government minister for prisons and rehabilitation, defended the changes.
He said: "With more than half a million crimes committed each year by those who have broken the law before, I make no apologies for bringing a much needed sense of urgency to dealing with this unacceptable problem. The cost of re-offending is too high to just sit back and ignore.
"Through our reforms we are finally addressing the glaring gap that sees 50,000 offenders released on to the streets each year, unsupervised and free to go back to their criminal ways."
Another two have legged it. This is chaos on a grand scale Grayling.
ReplyDeletePolice are hunting for two men who absconded from an open prison in Cheshire.
DeleteAnthony Peloe, 43, and John Arnold, 30, were found to be missing from Thorn Cross open prison in Warrington at about 10:30 BST on Tuesday.
Peloe was convicted of possessing firearms in 2005 and Arnold was jailed in 2006 for robbery. Both were given indeterminate sentences.
A spokesman for Cheshire Constabulary urged the public not to approach them.
Peloe is described as white, 5ft 8ins and of "proportionate build", with brown hair and blue eyes, while Arnold is said to be white, 5ft 11ins and of slim build, with brown hair and eyes.
Peloe was sentenced to three years and Arnold was jailed for two years, but their indeterminate sentences meant the pair had no automatic right of release once they had served their time in prison.
'Immediately ring police'
Supt Martin Cleworth said officers were "making every effort to locate these two men including liaising with colleagues in other forces".
"They may be travelling together or separately," he said.
"My advice to any member of the public who sees them is not to approach them, but to immediately ring police."
I think this article is very important on a whole different level- and one that the media appear to not quite picked up on yet.
DeleteThe majority of those absconding are IPP prisoners significantly over tarriff.
This report on the most recent abscondings highlights this.
2 and 3 year tarriffs 8 and 9 years ago? Just exactly how many IPPs have served 3 or 4 times longer then tarriff? And just exactly WHY is that Mr. Grayling? Is it part of your Rehabilitation Revolution?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hunt-two-more-run-prisoners-144434342.html
If you know you're likely to have your ROTL and Town Leave removed within the next month and you're over tariff; a bit of absconding might feel like fair compensation. I expect we will see more.
DeleteI think the number absconding at the moment is not really being understood.
DeleteThey are in fact NOT absconding at all, they're just sneaking off to the library because Graylings curtailed their reading material.
there has been word that the risk of recidivism tool score what ever it means has been shifted higher to 7.00+. Who is in control of the number and what does it actually mean?
ReplyDeleteI think its like gold prices, set daily depending on supply and demand.
DeleteSo above 7.00 you get justice steak, below you get mcjustice with fries
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely hilarious, made me laugh after another hard day of confusion and chaos at work.
DeleteStill no manager can give any answers if I was the bidders I would stay as far way as possible, their investments will not be safe.
Not related to probation, but this article and associated comments in the Telegraph about todays appeal decision may appeal to those (such as myself), that just enjoy it when Grayling is getting his legs slapped.
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jennymccartney/100272484/why-is-chris-grayling-trying-to-nationalise-the-criminal-bar-at-a-higher-cost-to-the-taxpayer/
Our justice system is being paralysed, but we shouldn’t yet permit large cases to collapse because of it. That is, effectively, the ruling today of three judges in the Court of Appeal, led by Sir Brian Leveson, on the case that has become known as Operation Cotton (R v Scott Crawley and others).
DeleteThe ruling will give momentary relief to Chris Grayling, the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, who is currently embroiled in a heated battle with the criminal bar: it would appear that he has not yet brought the UK criminal justice system down around his ears. None the less, great chunks of masonry are still hanging by a thread, with little prospect of immediate repair.
You might remember that Operation Cotton, a complicated £4.5 million fraud trial, was stayed by Judge Anthony Leonard on May 1 on the basis that the defendants could not secure adequate legal representation (a point eloquently argued on a pro bono basis by Alex Cameron QC, the Prime Minister’s brother). This impasse was due to Grayling’s decision to cut barristers’ legal aid fees on Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) by 30 per cent, and the barristers’ subsequent decision to refuse such cases.
That ruling was a serious embarrassment for Grayling. It was appealed, and today the Court of Appeal reversed it, finding that the case should instead be postponed until enough barristers could be found to do it. That will be a temporary relief for Grayling, although the problems that led to this shambles have by no means gone away, and even more glaring contradictions have been exposed in the course of it.
The Court of Appeal – preferring to live in hope rather than expectation – found that a “stay” was a disproportionate measure, since some resolution over fees with the Criminal Bar may be found, or the Public Defender Service may be expanded to cope with demand. It did not, however, rule out the possibility of a “stay” in the future.
You might not have heard of the fledgling Public Defender Service, or PDS, but it has emerged as Mr Grayling’s Plan B if self-employed criminal barristers keep refusing to run with his ball. In an MoJ argument submitted to the Court of Appeal, it emerged that “the Government is ready to place advertisements as soon as the weekend, and headhunters have been retained on a contingency basis to secure senior counsel”. I wonder how much those headhunters cost the taxpayer? They don’t come cheap.
This was described by the MoJ in its representation as an “emergency measure” to keep the justice system running. Some might say it is a wholly predictable emergency of the Justice Secretary’s own making.
The existing PDS barristers, small in number, are effectively employed by the state, which provides them with a pension, sick pay, holiday pay and all the other perks which members of the criminal bar presently provide for themselves. As such, the PDS is considerably more expensive for the taxpayer.
Since the raison d’être of the legal aid cuts in the first place was ostensibly to save the taxpayer money, you might find this confusing: I know I do.
The cost of employing a QC at PDS for a year is £125,000, rising to £173,328 when state-paid expenses are taken into account. The cost of employing a QC to work on a VHCC case full-time for a year at the old rates is £145,578, out of which they will then deduct professional expenses of at least 35 per cent which they carry themselves.
It would therefore cost taxpayers £27,750 more a year to use a PDS QC on a VHCC – including very complicated fraud and terrorism cases – than it did to hire a self-employed QC at the old rates. I imagine that, over time, such excess sums would mount up to a contentious taxpayer-funded bill (unless, of course, Grayling plans to attract a very large number of barristers into the PDS and only then slash their rates dramatically as well).
As legal observers such as the forensic @JackofKent have pointed out on Twitter, Mr Grayling is seemingly now bent upon nationalising the criminal bar at greater cost to the taxpayer. This is a curious position for a Conservative minister to find himself in.
DeleteSo what is this really about, if not savings? It has now become about the desire for control and the flailing avoidance of political embarrassment by any and all means necessary.
In any case, the Court of Appeal – while allowing Grayling some breathing space this time round – seemed to take a dim view of how badly relations had deteriorated so far. It reminded the public that “the criminal justice system in this country requires the highest quality advocates both to prosecute and to defend those accused of crime: in addition, they are the potential judges of the future” and that it is of the “utmost importance” that the MoJ and the professions try to “resolve the impasse that presently stands in the way of the delivery of justice in the most complex of cases.”
There is some talk that the Operation Cotton case might now go to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, there are a number of other very complicated fraud cases in the pipeline, which will be subject to exactly the same practical problems. And over it all hangs the bitter reality that never before has a Justice Secretary expended so much time and fruitless energy in doing battle with the very people who – in any sane democracy – would naturally be on his side.
"It has now become about the desire for control and the flailing avoidance of political embarrassment by any and all means necessary."
DeleteThis is spot on. Grayling has ZERO previous experience of any areas of work covered by his department, and is only interested in winning fights. David Cameron, for making this disastrous appointment, should be held just as culpable for the disaster that will hit the whole system in the next 12 months.
Something has to be done about these bloody CA and RSR tools ! In my trust nearly every new case allocated ( remember that is worked on new sentences not new to service people) is going CRC......that can not be right? If so, it implies the award winning public sector probation staff previously got it sooooo wrong...
ReplyDeleteMessage from CRC member of staff, new cases, all oral reports, little information, no children's services checks or DV check, risk of re offending not done, who said less bureaucracy? I am interviewing like for a report, I am assessing risk and I am calculating the old OGRs. Not apportioning blame to fellow colleagues in NPS as they are at their wits end, this is not working I am working harder than ever on my computer never mind my clients. Any similar stories?
ReplyDeleteCRC in Stockton getting over 90% of new cases with only 30% of staff #probationmeltdown!!
DeleteProbation discussed on 5 live today Tania Bassett contributing and there is a bit on look north tonight. In Wales, Napo wales vice chair Tracey Worth on the wales report bbc1 10.35 and it looks like Ian Lawrence been hard at it telling bidders what they are getting themselves in to over the last few days.
Deletein a midlands area they are asking for 120 psr's split between 2 city teams per month, with rapidly decreasing staff in the NPS on top of everything else. Shocking
ReplyDeleteThe wheels are starting to fall off for Grayling
ReplyDeletehttp://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/7231
"Those escaped prisoners are less risky than Grayling for sure!!" -
ReplyDeleteThats a risk assessment I would countersign any time.
Offender who was previously assessed high risk DV & CP perp committs further offence & under RSR allocated to CRC - SFO soon & will blame PO for not applying professional judgement.
ReplyDeleteRSR tool, if they are not see the % drops and will push NPS Cases into the CRC. Going to be a lot of risky cases landed in the CRC.
ReplyDeleteIt has already started, virtually everything is going CRC
Deletehttps://twitter.com/NorthumbriaPCC/status/469196382570831873
ReplyDelete"Prisons Minister answers me that new probation aftercare 4 people getting less than 1 year prison sentence won't come in soon"
No surprise there then, lot of guff about meeting at the gates and needing to get the under 12 months. LIES LIES LIES
For "won't come in soon" read "won't come in ever, as we've realised it's just as bad as Custody Plus, but we've got what we wanted anyway".
DeleteSickening.
The Wise One a year ago on BBC news:
Delete"The government has set out plans to increase support and supervision for people released from prisons in England and Wales.
All former inmates will be supervised for at least a year with charities and private companies paid according to how well they prevent re-offending.
Senior members of the Probation Service, which will continue to monitor high risk offenders, have criticised the new plans as "untried and untested".
The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, said the new system had been successfully piloted areas of the UK."
Hahahahahehehehehohohohohahahehehoho, etc. One year on it seems PM Cameron tells us it aint going to happen "soon", but as Anons 22:10 & 22:17 highlight, the damage has been done on the back of those lies.
Blair's legacy - the brass neck to lie to and deceive the country and parliament in order to get your own way and line your own pockets. Scumbags. Yep, they're cash rich (our cash, taxpayer cash) and influential - but lying, selfserving scumbags the lot of them.
Correction - clearly I can't read - it was Prisons Minister (presumably our old mate Jezza) NOT Prime Minister who responded to Mrs Baird. Sorry, Dave.
DeleteLink to gmpt update (pdf). No ethical wall required. How ethical is that?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gm-probation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Transforming-Rehabilitation-update.pdf
Date: Friday 22nd May 2009
ReplyDeleteCUMBRIA Probation Service is bidding to become a probation trust, which it says will allow the service to become more businesslike and lead to greater local involvement with communities.
The Offender Management Act 2007 requires all current boards to achieve trust status by April, 2010. The trust status bid by Cumbria Probation Service is said to have the full support of MPs, partners and stakeholders.
The service believes trust status would be more cost-effective, as it would target resources where they were most needed. It would also enable better planning for services over medium to long term.
Annette Hennessy, chief officer of Cumbria Probation Service, said she was confident the trust application would be successful.
She continued: “We have an excellent staff and are producing the best results in the North West region. We have already reduced our overhead costs while maintaining front line resources.
“We are recognised for excellent delivery. Our Scafell project, for example, which is designed to manage prolific offenders, won the Butler Trust award this year.
“We have developed innovative ways of working with victims and offenders through links with Cumbria Reducing Offending Partnership Trust. We are looking to share resources and facilities with our partners, such as the police and county council, and other local stakeholders.
“Our aim is to continue to make Cumbria a safe place to live by reducing offending and enforcing the decisions of the criminal justice system.
“We believe staying local provides a better service, and trust status will be the next step in enabling us to do this effectively.”
erm??
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the article by Vera Baird on the Journal, linked to earlier in the thread - the following press release was circulated locally at about 7am on the day of the report - you'd have to ask the journalists why they didn't include any of it!
ReplyDeleteCommenting on the report released today by the Public Accounts Committee into Probation Privatisation Mike Quinn, Northumbria spokesperson from Probation Union Napo said:
"We are pleased that at last Members of Parliament have given the issue of the Privatisation of an agency key to the protection of the public the proper scrutiny it requires. Let's just hope it's not too late. Today's report points out that the Government are pressing ahead with their ideological plans without even a proper contingency plan, which is either a sign of arrogance or complete stupidity. They are quick to try to put political spin on what are actually very good performance figures by Probation, whilst at the same time risking public safety with a monumental gamble without even a "plan B". Have they forgotten the recent tagging scandal? We challenge them to show us the evidence that handing the job of rehabilitating offenders to private companies such as Sodexo will improve the rating of 'outstanding' which is already awarded to Northumbria Probation Trust by the Ministry of Justice."
Probation staff across Tyne and Wear and Northumberland are at breaking point preparing for a split enforced by Government, due to take place on 31st May this year. Mike continued:
"The Northumbria Probation Trust, along with Trusts across the country, are simply carrying out the orders which the Government has enforced upon them - nothing short of an unrealistic timetable for change. It's just a real shame that in Northumbria we're going to see the fragmentation of a very well performing Trust for the sake of what Napo considers to be a political agenda"
Please follow this link to find the full Public Accounts Committee report, along with comments from the Committee Chair, Margaret Hodge MP. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/news/publication-of-report-the-criminal-justice-system/
Thanks to Mike - you and some other local Napo folk have been excellent with The Media - I wonder you did not consider also releasing it nationally via Napo Chivalry Road and their usual outlets, presumably including such as The Press Association, or go direct yourself and/or also putting it on the Napo website - at least in the Forum.
DeleteI copied other press reports of the PAC report into the Forum and would have added this one, if I had had it at the time I was doing it - I may do it later - better late than never.
Today is a slack day for political stories - due to limitations caused by the law relating to broadcasting whilst polling stations are open - I do not think print media is affected - it maybe a good day to get coverage of the 'split' catastrophe, but better that politicians or their parties are not named until after the polls close at 10 pm - maybe even NOW some PR bods or probation practitioners are available to phone up local radio and such like just to give anonymous examples of what is really happening - you are not civil servants yet and some of you never will be, and some of you as official spokespeople of a trades union have a right to comment.
I still believe the train can be stopped - it is likely to be a very uncertain political week as the Local and Euro results are known, the Tories and LibDems will do very badly, I think the Wilson adage ' a week is a long time in politics' may be demonstrated in the week from now.
Theresa May gave a very strong message to The Police Fed - she tells it how it is mentioning such things as Hillsborough, in which the Tories nationally were involved (probably) - there is a good write up about that in The Guardian - Northern reporter - Martin Wainwright - I think - I have only glanced at her speech - she is definitely a PM in waiting - though maybe not the next one - I believe we could see a real shake up in Government before the General Election - Probation might just be able to return towards sanity - and so there maybe real media opportunities to get the message out - from people right at the front-line - not old fogeys like me who are ten years away from being a practitioner.
Steel yourselves, support each other AND TELL THE MEDIA before deaths are attributed to TR.