Not Fit For Purpose

It's Sunday, so where is 'Bleak Futures Week 22'? No energy for it I'm afraid. On more than one occasion I've seriously thought of packing this blogging lark in. It's all been said; the battle's been lost; readers are getting bored; it's having no effect; nobody is listening; it's time to move on. 

To be honest my recent sojourn got me mentally preparing a valedictory script as I've no stomach to preside over a long lingering blog death, but then I've been reminded of some unfinished business. I hope regular readers will recall that, although I've always sought to be supportive of my union, on occasion I've been somewhat forthright in offering criticism and what I thought was constructive advice. As far as I can tell it has had absolutely no effect and the existence of this blog has still never been officially and publicly acknowledged by the Napo high command.

Some things in life just beggar belief don't they, such as Sepp Blatter doing a fine impression of being King Canute, but managing to hold the tide of change back single-handed at FIFA, or should that be FEEFA? Some might be tempted to see certain similarities with Napo. On numerous occasions I have stated that the organisation and its leadership is completely dysfunctional, in the naive hope that this clearly obvious fact might resonate with someone in authority, with the result that something might happen. But no, it seems everyone at the top prefers to play dumb instead and pretend that things are just fine - maybe a tweak here or a tweak there, but nothing major needs to change. 

Despite everything that's happened over the last few years; the shenanigans; the resignations; the rows; the failed campaigns; the incompetency; the unaccountability; the communication disaster, etc, etc, there's not been the slightest sign of the need for some considered insight; enquiry; analysis; post mortem; soul-searching; or serious internal review as to how to approach the future in a dramatically changed environment. Ok there has been a re-alignment of branch boundaries and a 'staffing review' as reported recently in Napo news:-

"At the time of my election as your General Secretary in 2013, I indicated that I wanted to be at the forefront of enabling Napo to adapt and change to the challenges ahead. Since then we have seen the restructuring to our branch network and the NEC, the creation of a new approach to the bargaining environment forced upon our NPS and CRC members and an improving partnership relationship between Napo and Cafcass senior management. We have done all this against the backdrop of a TR campaign. 

Recently we have reviewed how we can best utilise our Full Time Officials and nationally elected Officers to ensure that we rebuild our engagement strategy with our members as well as their employers, and underpinning this are ongoing reviews of our finance systems, membership services portfolio, our communications strategies and our relationship with the excellent National Representatives Panel. 

We have also now formally commenced a consultation process with your staff here at Chivalry Road (and the UNITE union) following the publication of Napo’s Staffing Review. This has produced a new operational template for the way in which we will try to deliver services to our members in the future. More details will follow once we have brought the NEC up to speed and answered the initial feedback from staff, but the key features include the creation of some development opportunities which will be open to our Administrator grade, no redundancies or detriment to pay and terms and conditions and a guaranteed role for each of your employees in the proposed new structure which will be based around three core functions of: representing members, professional support and campaigns, and Finance and services to members."

But this is just tinkering at the edges and hardly a thorough structural review of the organisation and how it works. The fact is it's fundamentally flawed and not fit for purpose. A good place to start is at the top and the role of Chair. There is an inherent conflict of interest by nature of the dual role as both employer and representative of the membership and it makes no logical sense. Over recent time there have been repeated demands from the membership for information, but the Chair is prevented from saying much due to legal obligations as de facto employer.

Obviously the NEC will be privy to much of the information, and are hopefully involved in key decision-making, but are similarly bound by the need for confidentiality. In a situation like this there is an absolute need for the Chair, and ideally the NEC, to be on top of their game and able to effectively line manage the paid staff in the form of the General Secretary. 

Especially in an information vacuum, there must surely be complete confidence in the 'top table' by the membership, but increasingly I don't sense this. Worse, in everything I've ever seen about this set-up in Napo speaks of ineffective line management of the paid staff, resulting in the tail continually appearing to wag the dog. Splitting the Chair's role in half was simply a barking mad idea that has compounded matters and must surely have been seen as an absolute gift to a patently unsuitable General Secretary intent on resisting being managed.

It should be obvious to all that there is a serious disconnect between the ever-shrinking membership and those at the top, amply demonstrated by the matter of pay. Although I'm led to believe a pay increase for staff was rejected as being somewhat difficult to justify in the present circumstances, I wonder who thought it a wise move to simply 'divi up' the surplus in the staffing budget caused by recent leavers? At one time I'd have felt some qualms about bringing all this up in public, but it seems hints and subtleties are just lost on certain people and a slightly more forthright approach is required.

As far as I can see, all the chickens are starting to come home to roost. The money is running out and some drastic action is now required. Unfortunately the time for an in-depth enquiry has now passed and it's hard to see how disaster can be avoided without some heads rolling. The problems are mounting up with 'check-off' about to cease, causing an inevitable further drain in membership. The communication strategy is laughable with no emails from the co Chairs for months, the Napo forum is dead and buried and still nobody seems to have a clue how to use social media effectively. 

Then there's the whole matter of professional issues. It could be argued that over recent time Napo has become more concerned with trade union matters than professional ones. Recruitment seems to have been geared towards people with trade union experience rather than professional knowledge and the 'top table' have become increasingly unbalanced in that regard. I've heard reports that at Officers and Officials meetings, professional items on the agenda are met with glazed looks, it being felt to be only relevant to the elected officers and a distraction for the officials. 

Of course this was amply demonstrated during the TR campaign with the General Secretary insisting that he front all media appearances, despite his extremely limited professional knowledge becoming all-too-painfully obvious. Some would say Napo is now a professional association in name only and could quite easily lose the Probation Journal to the likes of the Probation Institute.  

It was always going to be a tough call fighting TR and Napo's strength was never going to lie with industrial action, but rather in the power of effective argument, skillful campaigning and networking with senior figures in Parliament, the profession and wider community. Sadly Napo just wasn't geared up for the fight, had a completely dysfunctional management structure and arguably didn't have the right people for the job. To this day I understand the MoJ were astonished that there was no effective Judicial Review mounted and the blame for that lies squarely in my view with the General Secretary and the inability of the Chair to effectively manage him. 

Like it or not, there is a head of steam building for change and Napo really would be wise to take serious note. All this from yesterday:-

No doubt whatever information and data are deduced from the survey will be of such a confidential nature its findings can't be shared with the membership. But don't worry! NAPO are doing a number of things, and badgering away at getting any issues uncovered by the survey, resolved. Unfortunately, NAPO cannot reveal to its membership the avenues of resolution it is taking. Clandestine don't you know?

If NAPOs efforts are successful, then they may enter into agreements with CRC owners and the MoJ. However, because of the confidential nature of those agreements, NAPO will not be able to inform its membership of what those agreements are. In the event that the CRC owners or MoJ do not keep to those agreements, NAPO will not be able to inform its membership either. However, rest assured that if this should occur, NAPO will take the strongest action it can. Unfortunately however, NAPO will not be able to disclose to its membership what form this action will take! I'm beginning to think that all NAPO exec meetings take place in room 101.

*****
This satirical piece is all the better for the fact that it does not depend on anything surreal: it all rings true. And it's telling the leadership of Napo that the old script does not work anymore. The members are wiser, more cynical, less trusting, less deferential to the Napo establishment. I agree the shock may come when it comes time to set up direct debits for subscriptions. Will a membership that is generally apathetic, and financially depressed, be much inclined to signing off direct debits?

*****
Mocking the union may not be helping anyone's ability to feel confident and get on with the business of supporting staff and representing members. What this leads to for now is who is doing what at Napo? What are their credentials for the tasks, who supervises, assesses and nurtures the energies in the right direction? Does the line management within the union have the right abilities and what are the job descriptions?

This whole situation makes you wonder exactly what we pay for in subscription? Is the money effectively spent or is it used to pay useless staff not really able to do a proper job? We are all under pressure to perform yet how are we confident what we fund is fit for its purpose in the climate we work today? This whole TR thing may well see NAPO as a union\professional body as the real casualty. Napo has to face up and the Chairs need to get a grip on the truth not what appears to be more collusion to stifle genuine member interest. That said, the delay will cost us our union because when the check off for subscriptions stops from employers there will be very few preparing for direct debit mandates given the current state of play. Come on Napo get a sense of urgency and come clean over everything. Integrity may well be something missing in many peoples opinions, but you can restore it through honesty.

*****
NAPOs whole existence has until recently been a very comfortable one. It's never had to deal with major trade disputes and the issues it has had to get involved with are pretty small scale individual disputes, where rules regulations, accepted working practice and conditions are well defined and clear cut. Their opposition has always been a government department that have really presented no great opposition at all as everything is pretty clear cut as rules regulations and policy have defined the outcome.

They've been too comfortable in truth, because when the battle horn was blown, they didn't have a clue what to do. The reality is NAPO are out of their depth with TR and the new world of private enterprise. Having always served as 'the home guard' they're just not equipped to serve on 'the battle front'. Maybe with that in mind, the membership may seem to have been pretty hard on their union of late. But it's hard times for the membership, and they deserve a lot better from the union then they've been getting. If NAPO are out of their depth on this, they should step forward and say. They may even be surprised at what support may rally as a consequence.

*****
The sad thing reading this is that all the above is true and that Napo will not grace us with a response. I do hope Napo sorts itself out but I think it is rotten at the core and there needs to be immediate changes at the top first which must also filter through into local arrangements - some local branches have rot too.

Instead Napo will tell us how well it's fighting for probation but cannot tell us what the methods or results are. How much we're benefiting from Napo decisions but cannot tell us what those decisions are. And that Napo members money is very well spent but cannot tell us what the actually costs involved are.

It's all very strange as usually when organisations use members money to pay themselves huge salaries, have few results, and shroud 'decisions' in secrecy, either people are sacked or arrested for corruption. What Napo will tell us is that "a union is as good as its members". The truth is that Napo has been losing active members for years because many of us see little that is inviting in Napo to be part of.

Once again, I do hope Napo respond to the membership and make immediate changes one way or another. The cynical person I am suspects Napo will do nothing and run itself further into the ground and merge or close when the money and property is gone.

*****
I think a problem for many who attend branch meetings is that manager Napo members also attend. Managers do not seem to see the conflict of interest issue, or the inhibiting effect on member contributions. Apart from this I do support the notion that dissent re Napo staff should be put to branch meetings. You cannot expect Napo hierarchy to respond to anonymous comments here - some could be Sodexo in disguise, out to cause mischief.

*****
We want a union that actually attempts to do things properly, not behave in a way that has generated all these questions. The void in the information is what drives posters concerns. The rubbish same phrase the GS espouses like you would want me to do and I am accountable to the NEC, doing their expectation and that old classic you professionals would require of me. All straight out of the Narcissist "how fool People and believe in your own Greatness" fools nobody anymore.

*****
The trouble we're having is that even the branch execs don't have confidence in Napo at the moment and it is hard to motivate members to get involved.

*****
Several staff in our area (myself included), were quite excited about the proposed £300 payment for those of us who haven't had increments for several years as we were on the top of our scale. We felt shafted when we discovered we hadn't been given a vote on accepting this and found Napo had kindly turned it down on our behalf. £300 May not seem a lot to Lawrence et al, but to those of us who haven't had an increment for years it would have paid for the car service! Thanks Ian for acting in my interest!

*****
If I recall correctly though there was a vote on this pay offer. My area voted for the offer although I don't know when the vote took place as I had no opportunity to vote, despite asking our rep when there would be a vote. I can't remember the exact voting results nationwide but I did see an email/communication about it and I think it was Napo areas in the Midlands and Yorkshire that voted against the offer and that swung the balance for the offer to be rejected. So in this case Ian did represent members.

*****
FOR 360 AGAINST 412 Representing what this turnout was hardly reliable and in my area a series of the worst office based meetings that really caught a few people at lunchtime. The problem is this sort of vote needs some real attention to modernisation and a reasonable ballot should be managed electronically surely? Either way NAPO may be a little too short-sighted to have ventured the appropriate investment. It will mean a defence based on data protection, but I don't think that it cannot be worked around.

*****
It is a shame that we lost a pay deal as the voting appears to be hit and miss. It just shows you though the absurd situation we are in. Members have real disappointment in not being able to have a small treat as noted above. Car service is important it's no luxury these days but essential. A pair of shoes or a domestic appliance all important and whilst our members are working harder for less. It was reported on this blog on the 20th that the NAPO staff had been given extra monies which has to be agreed by the chairs. So how in touch are these people handing out more NAPO cash when staff ask for it yet no one seems to realise how insensitive this is to us, the bill paying membership. Sure, no problems when we are all doing well and pay rises with increments were the norm, but that is not how things are today.

If what we are reading is true about membership figures in decline, also the failure of the General secretary and his team to actually do anything that has helped our situation, I would think the NAPO office has less to do than ever before. So have they had a pay rise or more money in some way or not? I have seen the post on here from one of the Vice Chairs so any chance they come back and declare the position?

*****
Yesterday's questions have been lost yet they raise the issues that most are concerned about. It is clear there is little confidence in the current General Secretary so what do we need to do to replace him? Napo is not MI5 or dealing with national security issues, it IS accountable to the membership who pay their salaries. Evil can only prosper while the majority stand by and watch - time for action ... anyone else agree?

-oo00oo-

To round off, I say this one more time. Napo is dysfunctional at the top and something has got to change, or the union is finished. But is there anyone listening? Or do those in charge really feel all these necessarily anonymous voices can be ignored for much longer?   

Some Uncomfortable Reading

All seem quite reasonable questions. Sometimes it helps to make decisions with details to hand. On the reformatting of the AGM, it's asserted there will be savings. What will these savings be, as presumably someone has done the sums? The costs of the former GS and the judicial review, again, should be published. The Napo leadership repeatedly refers to this 'member-led' union, but aren't you 'leading' in ignorance if you are unenlightened by information that the leadership know but the membership don't know.

Work-related stress has been mentioned in this blog many times, but according to the May edition of Napo News, only nine branches submitted returns to a national survey. I think this low response rate is saying less about the prevalence of stress, but possibly much about the ability of branches to cope with demands and diminishing resources.

*****
Frankly, Napo has been fucked for money for years. The large influx of members in the late seventies has been retiring and they haven't been able to recruit enough people to replace them. They could've dug themselves out a bit by selling Chivalry Road a couple of years ago but refused to countenance siting HQ away from London to save money.

The fundamental problem however is the political naivete of the membership and the elected leaders. I've seen it at NEC over the Probation Institute. Some of us argued that it was a front to provide false credibility to TR. The prevalent view however was that Napo should get involved so it could be influenced. There was never any chance of that as the "even handed" academics were always going to run it and fail miserably to support a politicized agenda.

The elected leadership have consistently been weak and too willing to prioritise the professional association priorities over being a trade union. The membership are also responsible. Even in the face of TR the majority were apathetic and unwilling to act. Look at the ballot turnout and solidity of the last strike. It was pathetic. JR was a sideshow at best.

The "secret" legal advice from the beginning was that it was a cripplingly expensive bet with a poor chance of success. Therein lies another problem. Yvonne Patterson commented somewhere the other day that they couldn't say anything at the moment about what they're doing to oppose the pay offer. They couldn't say anything about Ledger's pay off. They couldn't say anything about plans for JR. Everything appears cloak and dagger and no one is held to account.

NEC and the elected leadership are weak and ineffectual. IL has a serious image problem and peddles the "punching above our weight" line when it's clearly nonsense. The membership with a few notable exceptions are unwilling to take part and Napo is skint and unwilling to take the tough decisions it needs to take in order to save itself. I left a year ago after ten years of activism and the sky hasn't fallen down. If you're in NPS join the PCS. They have a strong record of politicized activism and will fight the Tory attacks on public sector trade unionism with vigour. If you're in CRC then I fear that you're fucked whatever representation you choose.

Whatever happens you've seen what the coalition did with supposed liberal brakes on. Now see what an unashamedly right wing government will do to the remainder of the public sector. You can't afford professionally, financially or morally to stand by and watch but, as usual, the silent majority will do so lending credibility to Cameron and Gove. Then they'll snipe from the sidelines about how their union(s) let them down when they did little or nothing. Rant over now before I get started on UNISON and the Trust chiefs and chairs. Duplicitous arseholes the lot of them. Good luck.

*****
Your arguments resonate all too well. On the pay claim, they are doing something, but cannot say what it is... So many times we have tolerated Napo working behind the scenes on behalf of members, promising to get back on this or that topic – but never doing so. The cloak of secrecy is a means to avoid accountability and avoid action. There is a patronising arrogance to some of Napo's 'positioning' on issues which often reeks of insincerity. It's Animal Farm writ large. Always it's a self-inflated elite that thinks it knows better. Of course, the majority of union members have shown themselves to have less fervent than Orwell's farmyard animals and this makes it so much easier for the leadership of Napo to live out their illusions undisturbed.

Unison is striking on the 11th June and IL tells us that Napo will be reviewing its position on the 19th June. As a West End farce this would be funny, but as an example of two unions working together, it's tragic stuff. From the grassroots perspective this is ridiculous and once again we will see members of one union crossing the picket lines of another union. These situations don't only damage workplace efforts to build solidarity, they increase cynicism towards trade unionism, because what is being witnessed is trade unionism as circus. And those in the upper echelons of Napo and Unison know this. And, like Greek Gods, they are playing with their members!

*****
I agree it's a mess and the truth is hidden by Napo. The co chairs are just the new complicit propping up a failed and losing GS.

If we have no chance in the future under Tories we have even less under Ian Lawrence. His image is not the bulk of his problem but lack of intellect for the role and what probation was and should have been. For him it is time to leave with dignity or will he force a membership revolt? If CRC members are to be lost the income will destroy both sides of Napo NPS CRC we had better insist on accountability but the NEC are pathetic as a group. They have too many excusers in the forum and they act like members of a certain Party mid 40s the moment capable people speak out.

*****
The problem with unions today, as with charities, is that those at the top take up their position from a basis of what they can get rather then what they can achieve for the good of the whole. Charity EXECs are very well paid, whilst those that do the real work shaking the tins do so on a voluntary basis. Union EXECs are also very well paid whilst the local reps do the slogging.

The social ethics and sentiments that make people want to do what they do further down the food chain is no longer shared by those at the top table. For them it's business and making sure they keep their place so they can achieve their lucrative rewards. How many of the Napo EXEC would be there if the financial rewards were not so great? The same question can be asked of other unions and charities too. Driven by a passionate belief in the cause? Or driven by the wage packet?

In some ways I think this next 5 years of Tory rule may change those attitudes for the better. People will have to become more passionate about the 'cause' because the Tories are going to show all just how bad things can get if you don't stand up and be counted for your beliefs.

*****
Any of us could take a wild guess at answering most of these questions and would probably be spot on. I know there are one or two Napo exec and confidants that post here 'anonymously' on occasion. Not good enough though. Time for Napo to come clean, acknowledge this blog, answer the difficult questions and be honest with the membership.

*****
With reference to the 'cost' of JR, I assume the question is asked with pounds spent in mind? However, more fundamental, is the real 'cost' of JR not to be found in the agreements and promises made between Napo and Grayling? At the time the plug was pulled on JR, court restrictions did not allow for the publication of the negotiations reached and promises made by Grayling to be published. We are still in the dark about these. When can we know what promises were extracted from Grayling that were acceptable enough to withdraw from JR?

These promises, obtained by Napo, were achieved not at the bequest of the membership, nor do the membership to date have any knowledge of the content of those promises. Surely now we should have the right to know?

Detailing the monetary cost of JR may be very difficult for Napo. If I recall correctly, there was at the time some contradiction between union and MoJ regarding who paid what. Napo claimed they only had to pay a partial amount and the MoJ press release claimed Napo had to pay the full cost. It would be embarrassing now for Napo to have to admit that in fact they were liable for the whole lot - not only because they've previously claimed otherwise, but to my mind would also raise serious questions about the validity of the promises they claimed to have extracted from Grayling.

*****
Ian Lawrence is the leader of Napo. We elected him so we stick by him. He has a proven track record and works tirelessly for members. Some things are confidential. Some things he cannot talk about. Some things Napo can't talk about despite Napo wanting too. Lay off Napo. We need Napo. I think we get value for money from Napo. Napo is cheaper than PSS and Unison.

*****
No Ian Lawrence is an elected General Secretary of Napo. He is certainly well short of leadership skills! What you should understand is that if the membership demand answers they are entitled. The so called leadership is to be held to account through the NEC. They need to realise their growing unpopularity within Napo membership for being so weak.

Everything has been lost. Nothing much left defend let alone win. We are divided to be conquered and now sadly divided we are ruled. Yet still to come we are now waiting for the final loss of all terms and conditions. Ian Lawrence will probably make them a cup of tea as they tear up the national terms or whats left of them.

Well done! It's not all his fault though, Napo elected him through apathy. Stop defending the indefensible lets work to a fresh start. Oust the General Secretary if we have to but lets have the debate by having answers! Truthful ones please!

*****
If Napo don't come clean and speak out, answer the questions, it's dead and buried. I will not sign a DD mandate for fees because I don't feel represented, I don't feel members are being given answers and quite frankly I am tired of the same cloak and dagger politics we critise the government for. As a taxpayer I expect government and every minister and MP to be accountable, as a Napo member I expect the same from Napo HQ exec and NEC. Don't bore me with media type spin, tell the bloody truth or say goodbye to our union.

*****
"Some things Napo can't talk about despite wanting to" - well lets start with the finances. I have sat through many a Conference listening to the floor get exasperated with the few Delegates who repeatedly (and legitimately) ask for confirmation of one financial point or another, only to be constantly fobbed off and treated as if they are a) a nuisance and/or b) a bit thick because they are not willing to leave it all to the Treasurer who will tell us what he thinks we ought to hear rather than provide full and comprehensive financial detail as requested.

If the detail was provided up front to all - not 'promised' to the enquirer by email later (as has happened on occasion) less Conference time would be wasted for a start. We are fully entitled to question Napo for how our subs are spent. I for one am waiting to see if the full cost of JR is shown (as it should be) in the annual accounts. I can see nothing 'secret' about this info. We voted for JR, we should know how much it cost us financially.

PS Napo is definitely not cheaper than Unison for a PO!

*****
"Some things Napo cant talk about despite wanting to" ??? They don't actually tell the membership anything at all. They decide what's to be done, why it's to be done, and how it's to be done. They even decide what outcomes are acceptable for the people they're meant to be representing without any form of consultation with it's membership so no-one can disagree with what they're doing or how they're doing it.

And to add insult to injury, they tell everyone they can't disclose what they're doing or how they're doing it! What other organisation or business would be afforded that level of freedom with it's members or customers? This is good old Blighty - not North Korea, and Napo are dealing with probation matters not matters of national security! For sure you don't want your enemies to know what your doing, and sometimes the law demands you watch what you say, but tell us bloody something, sometime.

*****
Well what can we expect?  I read here that the treasurer Mr Stockeld, despite being smart enough to avoid any responsibility, has landed a place in the PI. Does this mean he is getting time off and rinsing Napo funding to attend PI meetings no doubt? I wonder how much the PI has cost members and then ask for that money back to help properly fund a member led AGM? As pointed out, it will be a secret or something and well an email. Of course the questions are raised by members for the benefit of AGM. No private correspondence Treasurer, just tell us how you have blown the accounts.

*****
Yes, IL is the leader of Napo. He was elected on a turnout of 19.6%. Not the strongest of mandates but he can't be blamed for member apathy. But all this stuff about Napo having to operate under the radar and observe omerta on various subjects is a perverse defence of the status quo. Napo behaves sometimes like any group with vested interests – they shy away from accountability. It is a great shame that freedom of information does not extend to trade unions.

On the AGM format there is haste to agree a new format. On the Unison strike, Napo will discuss it after it has happened. There is nothing – either confidential or that threatens national security – that stops Napo from setting out its views on the Unison strike. Napo members will have to cross Unison picket lines to go to work, just as Unison previously crossed Napo pickets. Chaos!

*****
Nonsense if questioned properly the General Secretary has to reply and is accountable to the NEC. They constantly fail to form the right questions. In relation to leadership I know that we elect Chairs who are questionable in terms of skills for the role but they are the elected lay officials who are supposed to lead on strategy and member interest. The tail has been wagging the Napo dog for many years because the Chairs do not understand the role. The last two GS have had ridiculous freedom and the membership rely on the elected officers to sort things out. The trouble is they do not have the either the ability or the confidence to deal with a Bull.

*****
I'd say there is more chance of Sepp Blatter being held to account.

*****
After serving as a branch rep for years and holding various branch roles, I did some regional work and then thought I had something to contribute on a national committee. Duly 'elected' I travelled to London (giving myself a fourteen hour day) and frankly struggled to come to terms with it all.

I found an established group of people used to working together, fair enough, but the down side was the shock of feeling I was there to make up the numbers. Yes, there are branches of differing sizes, but really each committee members should have value. I thought it was morally dishonest to attend and not represent members views or contribute.

There was often the 'theatre' of national officers and officials sweeping in late because they had been dealing with 'important stuff' they could not share yet, but keeping us waiting when we had 3/4/5 hour journeys to get there. Then being late, we had to rush through the agenda restricting discussion and in my view conflicting with basic principles of democracy.

I found it interesting to see that several newbies eventually withdrew, all had something different to contribute and were not insiders. There was a really interesting power dynamic and I found it fascinating to observe just who was worthy of time from the top table lot. I decided such shenanigans were not worthy of my time and the effort I put in to read the papers in advance and consult with my branch. Someone posted earlier about Animal Farm, they were absolutely right!

*****
Maybe this is why people I trusted, respected and voted for didn't live up to expectations. Well done for speaking out publicly whoever you are. Personally I don't feel the AGM proposed changes are to do with cost, but an opportunity to restrict the membership networking that prior to the last AGM caused serious concerns for the HQ exec.

*****
You are probably right. I recall prior to the suspensions of 3 reps on the NEC we could email all the other NEC reps on the email, as a matter of course. I am not an NEC rep but have had conversations that demonstrate after the suspensions fiasco the email between NEC members became restricted by Napo and then became a thing of the past. It was claimed to be a data protection issue but we all know this is nonsense. Anyway, it is still the same Napo leadership who had posters on the Napo forum censored and removed. The removal makes the forum and the management of it untrustworthy. That is why this site provides anon for comment and protection. The ordinary get a voice.

I think we should do the same with the General Secretary. Censure at AGM and a vote of confidence. I expect he will lose after the abysmal record.

Napo Questions

The following questions have cropped up in the course of private correspondence and it would be interesting if some answers were forthcoming.

1. Has the normal process of NEC ratification and reporting of committee work been abandoned? And if so, why?

2. What has made the limited choices concerning the AGM so urgent that it appears to have taken priority over other important work, such as redundancy concerns for our members, especially in Sodexo?

3. Who authorised and agreed this survey, or which National Officer is taking the lead on this?

4. Exactly what is the justification for attempting to vary the AGM arrangements outside of asking the AGM itself? The AGM is the only place where such constitutional changes can be agreed. I understand it has long been known that the NEC has fought off previous reforms through motions at AGM.

5. In the AGM memo there is mention of costing efficiencies 4 times in 6 lines and one could be forgiven for thinking there may be a funding crisis. With reducing membership, 'check-off' to end and NPS cocking-up payments for at least 100 staff, isn't it time the leadership came clean about things?

6. Is the Napo Finance Sub Committee doing its job properly and can Napo afford its AGM in 2016, or not? Is there a concern that in 2016 there will be insufficient members or income to support its constitutional commitments to members?

7. How much did the Judicial Review actually end up costing Napo, what were the legal costs and why has there not been full publication of these details is before being required at AGM 2015?

8. In the Napo news in April Ian Lawrence reports that Napo HQ staff will all have new role opportunities and that all jobs are apparently safe. How can he say that if membership income is in reduction? There is still a full team at Chivalry Road, but leadership seems poor and not much seems to be happening, apart from taking over the National Reps roles in order to save costs and arguably reduce representation effectiveness.

9. Napo's ability to represent members properly at local level seems significantly reduced. How is Napo to overcome the issue of ensuring representation of members is met in the CRC's or NPS or is it looking to potentially drop the representation and membership involved with multi employers?

10. Napo recognition is in jeopardy in CRC's if membership falls below 51% of those employed. Have the figures been collated in order to understand the extent of the issue and efforts made to ensure branches are aware in order to protect the recognition rights in those areas? If not, why not?

Napo AGM

Further to my recent post on the future of the AGM, here's more from Napo HQ:-

BR 49/2015

TB/KF

To: Branch Chairs, Vice Chairs, Secretaries & Convenors Family Court SEC
Officers and Officials

26th May 2015

Dear Colleague

URGENT – CONSULTATION ON 2016 AGM

This circular is a follow up to BR46-2015 which consulted branches/section/members on a new format for AGM from 2016. The proposal is to concentrate the conference over two days, rather than spreading the business over three days as we do at present.

The options put forward are as follows:

1. Stay the same – AGM starts currently on Thursday afternoon and runs until Saturday lunch time.

2. Two day conference – Starting on Thursday morning and ending on Friday afternoon.

3. Two day conference – starting Friday morning and ending Saturday afternoon (which reduces the time members need to take off work).

Responses so far show a significant preference for option 3 – but the consultation is open until Monday 1 June, and we are eager to get as many views as possible. We would be grateful therefore, if you have not already done so, if you could circulate BR46 and this circular plus the additional information to members and ask them to respond either to the branch/Section or direct to Kath Falcon at Chivalry Road.

Additional Information

We thought it would be helpful to share additional information arising from questions already asked by members – please see the attached paper appendix 1

BR48-2015 Appendix 1

New Format AGM – 2016

We currently run a two day conference over three days – i.e. 2pm Thursday – 1pm Saturday. Prior to this (up to 2008) AGM ran from Friday to Sunday – starting late morning on Friday. The change to the current format was to address falling attendance owing to (we believed) members not wishing to give up their entire weekend. This seemed to be borne out by a revival in attendance. However, we believe it is time to review this again, given increased problems with members being able to take time of work and also in the interests of making best use of our current, stretched resources.

The two main reasons for the proposed change are therefore:

Financial

As stated in BR46-2015, the proposal is about savings, particularly in relation to the cost of venue hire, but also other cost e.g. hotels, entertainment, etc. However, it is not simply about cuts. We currently keep costs down by using seaside venues, out of season, which attract local authority subventions. The number of days hire is not a particular consideration in these venues. There has, however, been an increasing call from members for us to hold AGM in more centrally located, inner city, venues – offering easier access and travel. A two day conference would put these, more expensive venues, within our budget.

Time-off to attend

We know from feedback from both branches and individual members (particularly in relation to registration for the 2014 AGM) that there is increased pressure on members taking time off work to attend AGM. This is the main reason given by those members responding to the present consultation for favouring option 3 – a two day conference on Friday and Saturday. As one member put it ‘times are changing’.

A two day conference – practical considerations

Members have asked more detailed questions about how a two day AGM would operate.

Conference would start early on day 1 – i.e. 9am. It is understood that this would require the vast majority of attendees travelling to the venue the evening before. However even though the current start time of 2pm on the Thursday is supposed to enable members to travel on the Thursday morning we believe that the majority of members do stay overnight on the Wednesday – particularly given the geographically far flung location of the venues.

Conference would finish early on the afternoon of day 2 – i.e. 3.30pm/4.00pm.

This coupled with the more centrally located venues, would mean that almost all members would be able to travel home on day 2, rather than staying for an additional night.

It would be a more intensive/focused conference – but we believe this is something we need to take on board given the constraints of the times.

However, it is for members to decide – and we would urge branches/Section/members to let us have their views on the three proposed options ASAP and by Monday 1 June.

*****
Well, children, if you hadn't demanded that we spend all your pocket money on JR, we might have been able to have a nice conference with jelly & ic-cream. As it is, you're left with bread & water & an early bed. And with what's left we'll treat ourselves to a bonus, because we were right!!

*****
It is a disgrace from Napo. Another way of trying not to spend Napo's money on its members. If Napo wants to choke itself from oxygen and life blood, all they have to do is to encourage far flung branches to travel all those distances for a day and to return again, without having any networking at all costs for professional exchanges. Another reason to ask why are we paying membership subs? Napo can't be shooting their foot on this one as they have already blown themselves off! Also, this is the first time I have seen Tania Bassett's signature as we have not seen anything from her lately. Does she actually work for Napo? It's like waiting an hour for a bus and when it comes round the corner, it has the 'Not in Service' sign above the door. How does this proposal fit in her job description?

*****
I applied to go to another conference and was told that branches have had a budget cut from Central and if I go to the AGM then I have to pay for my place at any other NAPO conference. This was an instruction and not up for discussion. I thought this must have been nationally agreed so I'm interested to hear others opinions.

*****
Napo HQ need to be held to account - veto proposals outlined above and advise membership cancellation if they attempt to push this through. I can't speak for other areas but I do feel that management are riding rough shod over NAPO in my area. Something tells me that after the last AGM, NAPO HQ are concerned about a revolt.

*****
And the more networking time allowed, the more likely a revolt is... real reason for above proposal to shorten the AGM?

*****
With respect to the gainsayers, a two day conference full of business is the same 'air time' as a three day conference with two half days and one full one. Is it me, or is the amount of time available for AGM business pretty much the same on all of the proposed models? It is the travelling time that is compromised, not the business. As for networking, if management were on this kind of conference and asked for networking time, we would be calling it a 'jolly'. I see no conspiracies here, just an idea to cut costs when membership income is falling.

*****
Stop moaning and just sign out of NAPO. Starve the union of your hard earned money which NAPO routinely wastes such as paying of a GS and a certain ministers legal fees. The leadership is poor and they make mistake after mistake for members. I ask not what you can do for your NAPO but what does NAPO do for you???

*****
Typical. I have seen Ian Lawrence criticised for NOT wanting to go for Judicial Review and now he is criticised for incurring costs for GOING for JR. He can't win.

*****
OK good point and well made. Leaving Napo is not the way forward though for anyone. Ian Lawrence has been well critiqued on here for his disastrous leadership if that's what you can call it. He ran like a greyhound into the power house to become involved in the development of the transfer arrangements. He was on the consultative SCCOG group and was incompetently supported in the venture by the then Joint chairs. Subsequently, the remaining one of the collapsible duo assisted him in the conflict of role as they were both new and inexperienced. We all know the inept judgement he showed by applying for role in CRC and then resigning more likely to afraid to face the voters than any disagreement with the General Secretary yet still we have no real detail on whether he was bullied out or not.

JR should have gone ahead a long time before it actually was lodged when they finally went forward having been tackled at the AGM. Much call for JR was raised on here by JB. Sadly there was no forcing motion or full debate in the AGM for the JR. It was lodged on weak issues because all the best stuff had been run out of strict time. We have not seen the full details of the case because Napo has found a self defence clause by claiming the Court ruled confidentiality. Yet none of us have seen the Court papers showing this ruling.

Use your memory if not your brain its not hard. Prior to the election there were was a real fear the cavalry were coming in the form of labour. There may have been a feeling for many we had hope. That has now gone yet we are stuck with the GS who has made some terrible mistakes. Shamefully he wont admit or concede any notion that he has not managed well! It wont be long before what is left of this union calls for him to go and go quickly. This will not be likely until the NEC grow some teeth. Most of them do nothing meaningful and actually command the top table to do anything. Farcical?

*****
Thank you, very thorough analysis, many important points raised. What is the way forward to set new NAPO leadership in motion?

*****
I think what I am reading is that because Napo was involved in the transfer arrangements, as they were being developed, Napo could hardly object via JR, having foolishly participated in it. They have done this through collaboration. Is this right? Am I just asking the wrong question?

*****
I was thinking the same, but was it because IL was involved with the SCCOG group, and therefore nullifying any opposition to JR? Was that why he was reluctant?

*****
I fear, particularly with the dubious suggestion of a further reduction in conference time (remember the Thursday starts and the Sunday finish?) will diminish further AGM's relevance to the membership. AGMs had in any case contrived to reduce member participation by staged platform debates by invited guests (all friends of Harry?). Our own debates became increasingly perfunctory with formal proposals, seconding and often passed nem con. We face the challenge of a trades union ill-structured to serve, with at least 22 employers in the criminal justice arena and with CAFCASS also. Combined areas present a challenge for Branch organisation by virtue of their size alone (though Wales impresses). Bullet biting time I think. NAPO should focus if it can on union issues.

*****
Agreed on trade union matters and NAPO learn what being a trade union is. Sadly this may well be beyond Mr Lawrence's limited abilities. Professional issues certainly are! When Sodexo bring their machines there will not be any call in CRCs to discuss professional issues.

*****
Wondering if JB next topic should be whether members have any confidence in the General Secretary and if, as I suspect will be the case, most have none, how we go about raising a vote of no confidence and bring in some new blood, professional who is capable of leadership, achieving results and who demands respect from the membership due to integrity? How do we begin this process? Time for action as most have had enough of the current self serving, egotistical, ambition above ability character we reward with our hard earned subscriptions, otherwise known as the General Secretary.

*****
Also remember the frustration of wanting to progress Napo agenda at conference but lacking quoracy due to excesses of previous evening many times! NAPO do need to develop more professional approach to AGM!

Bleak Futures Week 21

With all of the plans towards people working from home and completing more home visits, there doesn't seem to be any conversation about staff safety. Many years ago, 2 people were murdered at the home of a family they had visited many times before and that was in the days when Probation and Social Services were viewed as helpful and positive.

*****
When the number of home visits increase, and the services and time to deal with clients issues decrease, you end up entering clients homes where they are increasingly frustrated and angry about not being able to resolve their problems, view the home visit as an intrusion rather then a point of assistance, and that's not a good recipe for a safe or harmonious relationship.

*****
I always feel uneasy when I do home visits to known single males and yet when you turn up one of their 'friends' is there. It's very disconcerting. I'm meticulous about ringing the office once I'm out but I'm wondering if I should ring when I'm going in as well.

*****
I don't really get this Home Visit business. Of course we all know that HVs have a place and usefulness, but the new models of mobile working seem to make them the norm. It's useful, but very inefficient. We also know it is difficult to sequence multiple visits and get the timings right. I wouldn't mind an increased flexibility in home visiting, and work in general, but all I can see so far is the CRC demanding people stay at their desks to do assessments.

*****
We can't stay at our desks - there aren't enough. Not enough rooms/desks/terminals. Home visits & tablets/laptops are the future.

*****
It is apparent to anyone who is looking closely at the developments as they progress (an inappropriate word if ever I saw one) that the practices in each area, each CRC and each piece of the NPS are getting more and more diverse and inconsistent. The offender experiences across England and Wales are getting increasingly variable and the supervision of cases in Somerset will be radically different to that that occurs in Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Cumbria and Lancs will look nothing like West Mercia and Greater Manchester will look nothing like London. All of this is potentially undermining the idea of consistency in sentencing. One wonders if it is even legal to have that level of variance. Transferring cases mid Order will be interesting!

*****
"It is apparent to anyone who is looking closely at the developments as they progress (an inappropriate word if ever I saw one) that the practices in each area, each CRC and each piece of the NPS are getting more and more diverse and inconsistent".

With this in mind, it's very concerning to hear the deafening silence of the unions. In the next couple of months the Tories will pass a bill that will stop industrial action being taken unless voted for by at least 50% of membership (that's 50% of membership- not 50% of those that respond to ballot).

The unions ability to take action will be very much reduced. The privateers are well aware of this, and are happy to develop their business models behind closed doors ready for implementation as soon as the Tories announce they've all but crippled the unions. Then they're free to do whatever they like fully aware of no resistance from unions, and no reprisals from the MoJ.

I really do believe this is why Sedoxo have 'wound their necks in', (for the moment), regarding redundancies and Terms and Conditions. They can just sit back and wait a few months until no-one has the power to challenge them. If people think it's bad now, don't wait for the rainbow, it's going to get much worse!

*****
Adult probation services under the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme presented a mixed picture, said Paul Wilson, Chief Inspector of Probation. Today HM Inspectorate of Probation published a second report on the early implementation of the government’s Transforming Rehabilitation programme.

Paul Wilson said:

“Given that we are still in the early stages of the implementation of Transforming Rehabilitation, it is not surprising that we found many of the challenges identified in our original report still remain. In what is clearly a fast moving and complex programme of reform, this inspection confirmed that it will take time for a number of the issues to be resolved. It is also true to say that some of the challenges identified by our inspections pre-dated the introduction to Transforming Rehabilitation, and some of the issues are in the process of being addressed. On the ground too, National Probation Service and Community Rehabilitation Company staff are working collaboratively to ensure a good standard of delivery of services.

“There is much still to do to streamline processes and reduce bureaucratic burdens that could stifle innovation. There remains too the need to continue to review and improve IT systems and processes, so that this supports the business of delivering effective, quality services to offenders that contribute to reducing reoffending and the protection of the public.”

*****
I am beyond disappointment after reading the report. The Inspectors promised us anonymity, 'say whatever you need to say' they said, then asked specific questions about middle and higher management in terms of the support they were giving to staff and how they were operating as managers. But then NOT A DICKIE BIRD anywhere in the report to reflect what we said (and what they hinted had been echoed by the other areas)? So why ask, why give the impression they wanted to hear about managerial support, and then not refer to it ANYWHERE?

Where's the honesty and transparency in that - if you wanted the info for other purposes, just say so. And don't then come passing subjective judgement on what you are told in good faith as part of me explaining my dire working conditions (ie my 'indefensible' decision not to do an ISP). Because YOU asked the question. An independent Inspectorate? I think not. An Inspectorate with a predefined (read Tory) agenda to confirm all is bedding down nicely under TR? Definitely.

*****
- Most cases allocated correctly & timely - nowt new there cos admin staff know their onions
- Risk escalation carried out swiftly - it takes a lot of CRC time & effort to submit, but 30 secs for NPS to knock it back
- Offenders are "positive" - not sure about that either.
- IT needs to be improved - wow!
- Reduce Bureaucratic burdens - I can't believe my eyes!!

Well done Paul, lad. Outstanding & innovative. Cutting edge, even. You've got the job. That's a nice pension pot you've secured for yerself. The first casualty of nepotism is the truth.

*****
Strike over pay, how stupid. Well I am not striking this time. I was treated terrible over the last strike by so called work mates. Heckled at the door, disgusting in this day an age. Well I will continue to work to pay for my children to eat. This is the 2015 not 1980's.

*****
Pleased I'm on leave - would have chuckled passing picket line - just as Unison members did when I took strike action for more than just pay - but whole Probation future.

*****
Can't wait for sentencing hearings in the next couple of years:

"Mr Bloggs, after hearing what your solicitor has said - Weaseley & Weaslier, specialists in criminal law - and having read the Sodexo Kwik-Style Report - available at all good CRCs & adaptable for all court settings - we have decided to offer you a Community Order with Nacro, experts in crime for over 25 years. You'll have to complete 100 hours of unpaid work for the Sodexo chosen charity of the month sponsored by Pfizer - Pfizer, proving drugs are good for you. We rather think that making you available for clinical drug trials would mean you give a positive contribution to our profits, er, sorry, to society. And as for rehabilitation we're giving you the chance to attend 40 days' RAR at the Nacro Academy, sponsored by Grayling Enterprises. You'll attend as instructed, allowing Grayling Enterprises to reap the rewards of rehabilitation. This sentence was brought to you by Mags'R'Us, the only proven sentencing courts powered by Unintel in partnership with PCWorld."

*****
Love it! Sad thing is that when NACRO were part of the Work Programme in Wales they were giving out the wrong information. They have been superseded by another company who's name escapes me.

*****
Courts have also been driving their own agenda to eliminate the traditional PSR as here in the North courts are expecting 100% of reports done on the day with "any errors being sorted out later" and we are already seeing serious errors as corners are continually being cut.

*****
Errors to be sorted out later without legal aid....mmmm.

*****
For example, to date, six orders on my CRC caseload made in the last 6 weeks are having to be returned to be varied/amended because requirements are inappropriate/unworkable. Hours of unnecessary admin & stress/distress. Why? Made without reports, made with McDonalds' fast-food reports, or simply NPS staff at court unable to access relevant information about cases. It's SHIT!

*****
It is indicative of the attitude of this organisation, an organisation that in its current form is well beyond its sell by date, that none of the factual content of your post appears in the public "news" area of its website. Having resigned years ago from the M.A. along with hundreds of others is it any wonder that many consider it a self serving organisation for the benefit of its gong seeking executive.

*****
"Providing probation and resettlement services in Wales has some key differences from the South West CRCs where we also operate."

Interested to read in Wales CRC Annual Service Plan that they state they also operate in the South West. Seems they may be a bit confused about their true identity. Working Links may operate in the South West but I am pretty sure Wales CRC doesn't (not yet anyway).

*****
Probably written by someone in WL rather than CRC. Maybe they want just one area incorporating all 3 CPAs. One admin, HR etc based in one of the main cities? "Services commissioned and managed by Wales CRC will be reviewed as we move forward to ensure they continue to be fit for purpose." WL are reviewing all their stand alone projects such as IOM, PPO and women's Pathfinder. They are looking to bring them back into the generic CRC.

Food for Thought

Two items I've noticed that are worthy of note, first this from the Lawyer:-

Criminal barristers are threatening to go on strike again, in protest against the goverment’s cuts to legal aid.

Members of the Criminal Bar Association voted overwhelmingly in favour of direct action with 1,328 out of 1,385 - or 96 per cent - in favour of action and only 57 voting against in a CBA survey. The CBA, which has a membership of about 4,000, says this is “a very high turnout” for such a survey.

One of the key issues that barristers are concerned about is the proposed implementation of the Duty Provider Scheme (DPS), also known as the ‘two-tier contract’ scheme. They believe that proposed cuts and changes could result in work that has traditionally been done by barristers being done by solicitors instead.

The CBA’s leadership believe the changes “will destroy the quality of legal representation within the Criminal Justice System. The most able and committed young lawyers will have no future, and the independent bar will collapse.”

CBA chairman Tony Cross QC, said: “The response for such a survey was unprecedented and 96 per cent of those who responded have urged the CBA to take action to press the Government to think again.

“The proposed changes have no sensible economic foundation and will lead to irreversible damage to the Criminal Justice System. The proposed scheme will reduce competition, stifle innovation and paralyse the market as it becomes closed to new entrants.Spending on legal aid has already dropped by one third since 2009/10, meeting government targets several years ahead of schedule. No other sector of Government spending has borne such brutal cuts. There is simply no room or need for more.”

“We remain committed to constructive dialogue with the Government to ensure that our country has a Criminal Justice System that is fit for the 21st Century. No barrister wishes to withhold his or her labour. It is a measure of the extreme nature of our concern that so many of our members are contemplating such action.”

And Rob Allen sounds a word of caution in his latest blog about the Magistrates Association cosying up to private companies in the form of CRC's:-

Private Troubles and Public Issues

It is concern about how things might appear rather than risks of corruption that have alarmed a number of current and former JP’s about the burgeoning financial relationship between the Magistrates Association (MA) and a number of private sector Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRC's).

The MA is a charity operating under Royal Charter which represents the vast majority of the 22,000 JP’s in England and Wales. As part of its income generation strategy, the MA has set up an Education and Research Network to be made up of organisations “working within and around the justice system”. According to the latest issue of The Magistrate Magazine, “we already have five founding affiliate organisations on board”. According to one of the members of the Board who oversees the network, these are all CRC’s who have contributed £10,000 to join. In return they will enjoy the fruits of the research which is commissioned, with any money left over helping to fill a £50,000 gap in the MA’s budget.

What’s the problem some might ask? Surely this is simply an entrepreneurial effort to add to the body of knowledge about the workings of the criminal justice system while strengthening one of its key stakeholders. What happens in court and the decision-making of magistrates are relatively under researched areas where new information could be of considerable public benefit.

The problem is not about the work that the Network might produce, although there must be doubt about whether it can both research high quality studies and return much of a profit to the MA. It is rather that the investment by private companies gives an appearance that improper influence might be being sought. CRC's are controversial bodies, the outcome of a highly contested process of privatisation. Labour's election manifesto referred to the reckless privatisation of probation, meaning dangerous offenders are more likely to be monitored by companies with no track record of success, putting public safety at risk.

The most recent inspection report about the Transforming Rehabilitation changes that created the CRC's found signs of developing tensions with the National Probation Service "as managers considered what they were actually contracted to do and entitled to receive, rather than what they had traditionally done". In this unsettled context, the CRC's will be looking for all the friends they can find.

The Guide to Judicial Conduct advises judges to take care in considering whether, and if so to what extent, their name and title should be associated with an appeal for funds, even for a charitable organisation. “It could amount to an inappropriate use of judicial prestige in support of the organisation and may also be seen as creating a sense of obligation to donors”. This is something that Lady Justice Hallett who sits on the Network Board will no doubt have considered. The Guidance does make clear that “there will be occasions, for example in the case of charities supporting the work of the Courts, where the objection would not apply”. But the vexed nature of the CRC’s, and the concern which their owners will understandably have to enhance their reputation should argue for caution on the part of the judiciary.

From the Magistrates side, the MA’s activities include the provision of information and advice to magistrates, developing guidance to improve the delivery of justice in the courts and responding to proposals which affect the delivery of justice. They cannot be put in a position where the content of that guidance, information and advice could be seen to be influenced by commercial considerations.

It is interesting that the Senior Presiding Judge has issued guidance about liaison between providers of probation services and sentencers, emphasising that it is the National Probation Service (NPS) who have that responsibility and not the CRC’s. It is not clear whether channelling communication through the remaining public sector part of the probation service is a matter of administrative convenience or of ethical propriety. It is perhaps worth the Magistrates Association considering both dimensions as they move forward with their new initiative.

Question Time

Missive received from Working Links chief about how pleased he is with the general election result. Meanwhile CRC leaders seem embarrassed their foot soldiers aren't dropping everything to complete a ridiculous staff survey.

*****
Increasingly desperate emails being received from senior managers about completing the WL survey, saying it "only" takes 30 minutes, and apparently we can minimise the length of time it takes by only answering questions about our "core tasks"... so do you want it filled out properly or not? Sounds like someone's bonus is at risk...

*****
I've heard that Deloitte is doing a business review of WL and the survey is part of that. They are looking to merge some job roles.

*****
That survey is a massive waste of time and there's something very sinister about it.

*****
The Staff survey it to assess all job roles, see where there are overlaps and act accordingly.

*****
Union advice is not to complete survey.

*****

The advice from Napo might be not to co-operate with this survey, and the cynical might be tempted to say they're hoping for a low response to the following:-   

BR 46/2015 TB/KF

To: Branch Chairs, Vice Chairs, Secretaries & Convenors, Family Court SEC Officers and Officials

18th May 2015

Dear Colleague

URGENT – CONSULTATION ON 2016 AGM

Napo has recently secured a venue for our 2016 AGM in Cardiff at the St David’s Hall. In line with our on going objective to reduce costs, and to run as a efficiently as possible, the AGM planning group has been discussing the future format of our AGM, which is currently the single most expensive event we run. As a democratic union that is member led it is vital that members have a say in how our AGM is organised and how members’ subscriptions are spent.

We currently run a two day conference over three days which adds significant costs to the venue booking fees. As such the AGM planning group has drawn up three options (see below) for members to discuss with a view to finding a more efficient, cheaper but still member led AGM for 2016.

Please circulate these to your Branch/Section members and ask them for feedback. It is a short turn around time for responses as we need to secure the exact dates for 2016 AGM and confirm the booking with them as soon as possible.

Please see the options below:

1. Stay the same – AGM starts currently on Thursday afternoon and runs until Saturday lunch time.

2. Two day conference – Starting on Thursday morning and ending on Friday afternoon.

3. Two day conference – starting Friday morning and ending Saturday afternoon (which reduces the time members need to take off work).

Please send responses to the consultation by MONDAY 1 JUNE.

Regular readers will be aware that I've not mentioned Napo of late, but many may feel the above has worrying hallmarks of some attempt to 'bounce' a decision without adequate discussion or consideration. To me it yet again demonstrates just how dysfunctional things are at the top. There appears to be no visible leadership and the vacuum created has allowed this sort of initiative to appear, seemingly out of nowhere, based on virtually no analysis or adequate explanation and with a completely unreasonable time frame attached. 

The 'top table' at Napo just don't seem to 'get it' and I predict some serious unrest within the ranks unless communication improves significantly and there is some sign that the General Secretary is being held to account. There is a rumour that the staff salaries budget has been raided in order to fund a recent bonus for staff, despite a wage increase being turned down last year. I assume the NEC has been fully involved in all key decisions, or is it time for them to be a tad more assertive?        

Bleak Futures Week 20

Maybe not a psychopath but possibly a Thatcherite moron carefully chosen because he's callus enough to finish the job. This is the same Michael Gove that wanted to dismantle the NHS and issue personal health accounts instead. He then moved on to bullying and intimidating the teaching profession. The end result was receiving a public vote of no confidence by the entire teaching profession. It's worth noting that while this was happening our probation leaders were cosying up to Chris Grayling just like they'll cosy up to Gove. The only plus is that he's not bff's with the PM.

Prepare for the swarm of introductory and congratulatory emails about this Tory appointment when you open Lotus Notes on Monday morning. I'd like to optimistic or believe that nothing can be worse than Grayling, but alas I'm struggling with that. With a Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor at the helm with no education or experience of the CJS I doubt the next 5 years will be positive for any of us. Anybody taking bets on long will it be until probation officers issue a vote of no confidence in Gove?

*****
Give Goves a chance before giving him a hammering before he has even started his role. For people who are supposed to be non judgemental a lot of judgements are being made on here. If you're unhappy then find a new job. Whether you're CRC or NPS, it is what it is and nothing can change things, so whatever your grade or role, get on with the job you are paid to do!!

*****
Do you mean JFDI?

*****
Sorry but have to applaud the JFDI response because that is the message we get daily - it does not matter that on a daily basis it's falling apart, teams are being depleted in one way or another JFDI. Going to quote that at SFO hearing.

*****
All we want to do is "get on with the job we are paid to do" but therein lies the problem. The processes seem to change by the week, the tools we are using are woefully not fit for purposes (specifically IT and constant workarounds that change then change again).So perhaps what we really need is for leadership to be shown by those paid to do so. This is NOT a practitioner problem - we are working amazingly well to deliver the work we do. It is a serious senior management failing.

*****
Most who comment on here have a sense of social conscience. Whether it's Gove, Grayling or any other 'officer' of our neolibreral right wing government is almost irrelevant. The issue is ideology plain and simple. It's not the person charged with the 'enforcement' of that ideology that rankles people most, it's the ideolgy itself that most people find abhorrent.

These next five years of ideological doctrine will no doubt spell out the Tory parties 'final solution' for public services. Gove, Grayling who cares, they're just figureheads in different offices, delivering an ideological paradigm that 80% of the population don't actually agree with or want.

*****
How do we assess risk of reoffending, risk of harm? On previous behaviour. Look at Gove's recent history and we have an idea of what's coming. Ask a teacher.

*****
We look at past performance. Gove has been Education Secretary in the previous Con-Dem gov and in my role as a School Governor I know exactly what is he is capable of. There is much to worry about with his appointment, he is equally unsuitable as his predecessor. There is little I would look forward to in his appointment.

*****
I too am very concerned about Gove but any Tory they'd give us would be a disaster. We know what's coming, a long hard 5 years. We thought the last five had been tough!!

I want to talk about the probation training, slightly off topic I know. I fear that our professional qualification is being watered down too much for the sake of getting some newly qualified PO's through the door. Within two months we had one trainee writing a report for Crown Court. How did that happen? I was so shocked. Even worse she wasn't even observed conducting the interview with the offender. How can this be a professional service? Really? Same with NPS PSO's, they can't hold any cases so they are thrown into Court with little training. It's just awful. I care about my profession deeply and feel it's being torn apart. Long term it will do us no favours!

*****
Well good luck with your debate and discussion with Mr Gove. My view is you'll find him in place to finish the job off that his predecessor started. His "management" of education should already show you that he is not one to listen to reasoned debate from the masses or even those in the know. His hands may be tied, but I see no evidence in the man that he will fight to reverse the damage already done.

*****
Part of me is wishing I went into the CRC as I feel that I am now at greater risk of being made redundant once the cuts start. Of equal concern is how our TPO's must be feeling knowing that they are doing nearly 2 years training and most likely not guaranteed a job at the end. I know Gove left Education following the Teachers passing a vote of no confidence, can we do this with this Tory Government??

*****
I thought we did put a vote of no confidence in Grayling, he responded with a 'big gone peasants!' I have nothing against these trainee's, many are talented and committed to doing the job but I'm concerned that they are all under 25 and female. I saw one on twitter complaining about having to clean her room. If that's all that worries her in her life, how can she relate to the cases she's supervising. I know lots of PO's who entered the service years ago as new graduates but to recruit so many on block isn't healthy for the service. I imagine they will be kept and we will be made redundant for standing up for the true values of probation.

*****
TPO's are cut price staff to fill in the gaps, then there is no prospects of a job after training.

*****
Charlie Falconer is good news. He is knows about Probation and was a great support for the brief months after he took over from John Reid when the MOJ was created. He was the one who said " it's time that the sun came out for Probation" Today we need a miracle rather than the sun!

*****
I have re-read the posts and comments across the last week, a week in which we have all been stuck with a long 5 years of a Conservative government, where I fear we will regret that they are no longer Condems. And what is everyone on about? NPS vs CRC; young vs old; social work vs crim justice training; client vs probation officer? If we carry on in-fighting and whinging like this (oh, I forgot, PO vs manager) we will just disappear in a puff of Delius outage. Do something, stop effing banging on about what someone else hasn't done. Join something, get out, speak out, work with your clients, do what you can, please just stop fighting each other.

*****
I work in an office with a young female manager who seeks to rule by isolating the majority of her team and surrounding herself with yes men. This seems to pass for 'management' these days. So this in-fighting as you say whilst being divisive is actually encouraged in some quarters. Better to have a few quislings than be at odds with an entire team....

*****
When are NOMS going to look at the link between long term stress and particular managers? Say for example someone gains a temporary appointment and suddenly staff stress related sickness increases then that person is then appointed as a manager and staff stress sickness increases, would it not be prudent for SOMEONE to make the correlation?

Use grievance procedures I hear you cry. But what if that person is such a bully that no-one dare? What if that new manager is merely doing the bidding of a senior manager and so has no sanctions to his/her behaviour since they would be the person to hear the grievance. Yup, no point at all. I think whistleblowing to the HSE can't be far away in terms of staff stress levels and the management of this.

*****
Repeatedly I have suggested that grievances are monitored and managers questioned and penalised over excessive rates. How else do you detect discrimination for example? Instead the managers are promoted.

*****
I have been in a situation where the entire team bar one was bullied by a new SPO. I was the only one who pursued a grievance. We were labelled as trouble makers and the manager had arse covered by senior management all the way. I eventually escaped to another office. You can have all the bullshit policies in the world, snr management don't want to know. That which didn't kill me made me stronger. I can laugh about it now but it's a nightmare when it happens. A tip for statements. Keep it factual and evidence based. Keep notes on a daily basis. Keep opinions to yourself and adopt a neutral tone. Good luck.

*****
I believe that people are venting on here as it's better than doing it in an open office. I have had to stand up for myself in an open office on two separate occasions, not nice. However, back off and do your job and leave me to do mine has worked. I don't want to say this but the sooner everyone knows where they stand the better.

*****
The thing is that the horrors of a newly-elected Tory majority government and our troubles as a newly-privatised, disintegrating public service are inextricably linked. We should all stand together because worse is on its way for the public services, welfare benefits and further attacks on Trade Unions. Those of you who aren't in Napo or left Napo should really consider joining again. This is where we could make ourselves stronger and more able to face the onslaught of the Tories scorched earth policy towards the state and its vital functions.

*****
Trade unionism in the UK is under threat. The irony is that trade unionism started in the UK because of the ways in which people were treated by employers. The threats to the movement come from all areas of society but the biggest threat is undoubtedly ambivalence. I understand that 28% of the UK workforce are union members. The issue is that only about a quarter of these are willing to stand up and be counted. The idea is to stand together. Without that collective consciousness, we will be unable to fight the powers that wish to use us at their whim and discard us without concern. Trust in your leaders and your employers will bring you nothing but disappointment.

*****
Why are Kent, Surrey and Sussex recruiting to the extent that they are???

*****
Because we are totally understaffed on the coal face and won't be able to fulfil the contract? More highly paid managers always useful/needed??

*****
We, in Cumbria and Lancs, having previously been told by Sodexo they want rid of 30% of us, are just waiting to see when/if/how this will happen. No chance of any recruitment for us.

*****
A member of CRC staff (PO) walked out sick today after having had a panic attack at their desk. The amount of work is just overwhelming and looming/missed deadlines contributed to the attack. This was in full view of an open-plan office.

*****
Same happened in NPS NE same area two very capable POs. Both off for months with work place stress...made ill by work...disgraceful.

*****
Dedication is one thing, dedication to the point of collapse is another. Pleease look after yourselves.

*****
In our middle size office there is something interesting happening. CRC staff are spending even less time with clients/offenders and spending all their time on ridiculous OASys targets. Meanwhile, in the NPS there is a sense of calm and thoughtfulness - reflective practice perhaps. People are talking about practice all the time, and a move away from group based interventions to more individualised pathways of work. Bloody hell - despite the CRC owners talking about client centred approaches and desistance all the time, it is actually taking hold in the NPS.

*****
I've never considered OASys as an effective tool to assess or predict an offenders risk. In fact I'd go as far as saying it's actually pretty rubbish in terms of assessing risk. The only real value in OASys (IMHO), is to provide the supervising officer with a document that provides evidence that they've followed due process and protocol in their duties whilst supervising an offender.

To that effect it offers some form of protection to the supervising officer when something goes wrong or have to account for their actions when a client commits an SFO. Once the detail contained in the document becomes diluted, any value it may have had as a method of risk assessment is gone, and as a document to evidence due process and practice it no longer provides the officer any protection at all. In fact it becomes a document that can be used against the supervising officer in the event of an SFO.

The less detail that goes in, the greater the risk to the supervising PO. I think it's time to get rid of OASys altogether now as it provides no value to client, PO, or public protection, and the unions need to keep copies of any instructions given to dumb down the detail in the assessment.

*****
The Purple People Eaters model of OASys reinforces my view that the new CRC providers are seeking only to maintain the illusion of risk management. As long as it LOOKS like they are doing it, the Quality Assurance structures will be satisfied.

*****
If combined with a thorough PSR, and genuinely reviewed following significant change of circumstance, the above guidance might actually make OASys useful. The trouble is, it's a long time since I saw a thorough PSR - at least in the sense of one that had all relevant current and historical information in it. This isn't meant as a criticism of PSR writers, by the way - it's the fault of the report factory system that we've ended up with.

*****
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the systems involved, isn't it a worrying development that things are reverting to the bad old days of quantity over quality? All those lessons we were to learn from SFO's etc, all worthless. The general public are not stupid and will ask that very same question, just as they have in respect of all the serious case reviews for children killed under our noses from Marie Colwell to Baby Peter! Shame on this frightful, heartless and witless government!

*****
Just to put the record straight, I am DipPs qualified and Maria Colwell and Victoria Climbie featured heavily in my training and since training have done specific training about outcomes from Lord Laming's reports 1 and 2 (Victoria Climbie and Peter Connelly). Can we stop the social work rules debate starting up again please. Sometimes we work within the training provided.

*****
"sometimes we work within the training provided..." - The current level of training provided does not provide the kind of training required to work with complex needs and issues which many offenders have.

*****
Sounds like Purple Futures are starting to lay their stall out as all of our Area's CRC staff have now been put on standby and told that the current buildings are unsustainable due to cost and plans are afoot to move us out. This is being hindered due to the Gateway problem with the IT system. Sounds like there is a workaround that they are currently testing and then we'll be gone. The big question is where to? Does anyone know about the buildings - will CRC have to give landlords notice or do MOJ own them?

*****
CRC offices in Newton Aycliffe (County Durham) and Bishop Auckland apparently closing and staff moving to Darlington. There is talk up there about their CPA having one or two hubs then staff doing home visits to clients who do not live near the hubs. Appears the ball has started rolling.

*****
If our office closed the other CRC offices are so far away that the OMs from the closed staff would constantly be doing home visits as no offenders could get to the new office. It would literally mean a day trip out. Unless we did home visits and rang a hub and the duty officer updated delius from our phone-in.

*****
ARCC is the Durham Tees Valley CRC and sounds to be the best by far - think it is the only staff mutual? I think they are closing all offices and will have two hubs, staff working from home using tablets. Staff seem pleased from what I've heard. Also a colleague there said the best of the managers went to ARCC.

*****
I work for ARCC as a OM. There are some teething troubles which are most likely due to TR and the working model but things are fairly positive but very busy. I think if something serious goes wrong then most, if not all OM's could claim to have high workloads. Probably the only thing that is spoiling what could be a prosperous venture.

*****
"... some teething troubles most likely due to TR." Thank you for one of the most amusing & innocent understatements of 2015. Good luck. x.

*****
Day trips to reporting centres, that will conflict with the requirement to be available and looking for work 5 days a week

*****
Same for most CRC's GATE IT is a massive hold up. RAR groups not in place in some areas.

*****
With ORA cases, how are people enforcing induction & info gathering appointments for sentence planning? Those appointments don't fall under the RAR as far as I'm aware or do they and essentially count as 2 days?

*****
Wales Working Links CRC offices were measured up last week. The guy even measured the ladies loo. Thought maybe we were having new carpets until then.

*****
I've heard that some offices in the DTV area CRC are on their knees due to a large percentage of staff being directed to prisons for TTG.

*****
Yep, we lost 4 OM's and 2 admin in our office. We are pretty much fire-fighting now. I agree 100% with what my colleague wrote about staffing levels. If my manager addressed this then ARCC has potential. If not then.. We are now starting to get a lot of post ORA custody cases and this is only going to go one way...

*****
The stripped back OASys should be a godsend to you lot then.

*****
It is. As long as they have NEVER had one or more of the following concerns:
DV
Violence
Child Protection
Witness Intimidation
Lots of D&D
Sex offences
Abuse
Childhood abuse
Adult abuse
Victim of DV

The list goes on. Looking at my caseload and it's safe to say that I can do a big fat raspberry to the thought of completing a T1 OASys. So yes, it's a veritable boon.

OASys Special

Purple Futures have issued new guidance for OASys:

1) All standalone UPW to have basic layer within 10 days.

2) All ISPs to be completed within 10 days on the info to hand.

3) When ROSH & RoR are both low then no need to fill in text boxes - just score sections 3-13.

4) If criminogenic ROSH fill in appropriate text box.

5) If after 10 days info from FCIU etc still missing the ISP must be locked and a review must be done within 8 weeks.

6) OMs to make assessments concise, no need to write numerous paragraphs.

7) Section 2 needs completing fully.

8) A risk of harm screening is to be done in all cases.

9) All ISPs must demonstrate client involvement ie include ENAM/SAQ items in the sentence plan.

10) All sentence requirements to be included in the plan.

11) Always put delius entry that OASsys has been completed - this can be done prior to OASys countersignature as we are being marked on timeliness and not quality!!

Definition of ROSH: many offences of assault where an injury's been caused which isn't life threatening or traumatic and where recovery will not be difficult or impossible are not viewed as 'serious' therefore no ROSH needs completing because although the offender poses a risk it is not a serious risk. We're to avoid using 'risk of harm' and focus upon risk of SERIOUS harm.

Despite the rights and wrongs of the above it is going to save me some serious time.

*****
Yes until your interviewed for an SFO and you will be asked "serious" questions about your assessment and your ability to risk assess.

*****
I don't think so as the assessment is based on the information to hand ie even if it's an assault, so long as no harm done then we're clear. We are no longer expected to have crystal balls and that will always be my defence. Very interesting the timeliness is prioritised over quality. Oh my word!

*****
SFO's will not be about crystal balls. It will be about information that is already available but the worker 'failed in their duty to investigate further'.

*****
But we're being encouraged not to enter text in boxes and only to score. Therefore keep Delius brief and they will have to prove we were aware of information and didn't investigate. Don't forget if it's not written down it didn't happen.

*****
I agree with your comments, although I would have to question what kind of culture are we being made to develop and what is our responsibility in that? Yes you have to look after yourself, but we also have a responsibility to challenge the oppressive nature of our working environment in which we are required to practice. We can't let our professional integrity become undermined.

Important to raise the issues of good and safe practice at every team meeting and at every supervision meeting. Self refer to occupational health and leave a paper trail of evidence of concerns. Have it recorded and have it documented, so when something does happen you can say..."see, I told you so, but I was ignored in favour of profits for shareholders".

*****
Sounds dreadful. How can they demand that?! They don't know anything about OASys and ROSH.

*****
Thank goodness, some sense at last. Hopefully this will provoke a long overdue review of exactly what is risk of serious harm, and what is meant by high, medium and low is actually meant to be about.

It wouldn't hurt to get people to actually read OASys before filling it in either, ie; it says insert language if other than English and what is consistently in the box? Provide the exact detail of the offence it says and what is in the box?, not the exact detail, the why and how.

Risk of Serious Harm, insert detail of the most recent offence/behaviour that raises the risk of serious harm and what is in the box? The current offence is not indicative of serious harm or the pulled through detail of the current shop theft. Over the page in previous behaviour is the sentence along the lines of convicted of, lets say, Indecent Assault, no detail available.(detail there in full in the assessments completed when that was current), but hey who has time/cares enough or even thinks of reading the previous sentences assessments?

Oh and score the sections according to the analysis in the guidance, rather than 0-2 as least to worst. (It's guaranteed that there is at least one person happily completing assessments, hitting the targets, doing it without even speaking to the person concerned, oblivious to the impact of what they write on the person concerned,(bet they would love to be told in supervision that they have a number of 'deficits') and is totally oblivious to the existence of help and scoring guidance. Oh and don't forget that if it's written down it certainly doesn't mean it DID happen.

*****
OASys at birth was a somewhat agricultural tool which was originally a useful concept, i.e. Bring all assessments together in one place. OASys now? Try to imagine a transatlantic aircraft intended to carry 500 passengers with all modern luxuries, but built upon the original Wright Brothers' flying machine. It's utter bollox, well intentioned but nevertheless bollox. And worse still, NOMS got their grubby mitts on it & decided to build in a spy network. Result - uberbollox.

Good points raised above, but it's difficult to make those points because of the complexity of the bolloxing stoopid tool and the lack of clarity of definitions. How many different systems now refer to "risk" as high, medium or low? How many different forms of "risk" are there - serious harm? Serious sexual harm? Serious psychological harm? Red, amber or green? Reoffending - same type of offence? Any offence?

For me, the tool should be an ever-expanding chronologically aligned single record. No locking off, guillotines or multifarious versions where data is abandoned or deleted - simply one continuous rolling assessment with key milestones/markers, e.g. new offence, start of order, new offence, hospital admission, transfer to prison, release, etc. Then, at any point, assessors can review without having to close & open multiple documents hoping to find if/where/when certain data was entered/deleted.

Recent example - new case, name was familiar, looked at last OASys, nothing to link with what seemed familiar. Out of curiosity I looked back at random assessments as far as records went and found one with mental health report attached. All reference to that had been deleted on the subsequent OASsys and thus any "pull thru" after that contained none of that vital information. I have now resurrected that historical information because it informs the why & how of risk to female staff. Last known officer told me "it all makes sense now. We couldn't work out why he kept on about being a risk to women when his offences were shoptheft."