Friday 22 January 2016

Latest From Napo 94

Here's the latest blog from Napo General Secretary, in full:-

More CRC's join the Job Cuts stampede

As we predicted even before the ink was dry on the CRC share sale contracts our members are now seeing the full extent of the real agenda behind the TR Programme.

As we receive report after report about the operational shambles that is being experienced in many areas, Napo is trying its best to manage multiple challenges across a number of CRC's who have announced job cuts that suggest they are already struggling to come to terms with the expectations of the less than transparent contracts they were duped into signing whilst satisfying the financial demands of their shareholders or stakeholders.

This week we have seen Interserve (Purple Futures) reveal their anticipated staffing needs across their CRC estate which, whilst not as savage as those we have seen from the likes of Sodexo (around 410) and the 40% reduction that Working Links say they need to make, are nevertheless serious enough to warrant questions if only because of their disproportionate nature, where West Yorkshire and HNYL staff are bearing the brunt of over 100 expected losses.

In Staffordshire and West Midlands I have just been involved in a meeting with Catherine Holland where Mike McClelland and local Napo and Unison Reps received details of the 10/12% staff reduction plans for these two CRC's.

As I indicated last week, the job cuts agenda itself is stretching us thin but nevertheless we are in touch with our local representatives and doing all we can to support them while we engage with the employers.

Risk on the increase
Hard on the heels of recent stories involving some CRC providers such as a dreadful self-harm case in Bristol, untold numbers of clients not actually attending unpaid work (Wales) or choosing to spend their time in the local boozer (HNYL) comes this example from an NPS member:

"I was allocated a CRC case last week that had been risk escalated due to mental health (MH) and DV issues and concerns over extremism. The client had only attended 2 appointments with them and missed 4 but was not breached but risk escalated. I actioned the breach as soon as I received it, however this caused problems as the CRC had not issued a breach letter so we are now having to go through the motions of sending a breach letter. In the meantime serious child protection (CP) concerns have emerged and the children were placed on the register today. At the Child Protection Conference today I had to explain why the CRC had not taken sufficient action.

After the meeting I had offered to arrange for the police to attend at the family home to remove the offender on a S136 due to risk concerns toward the family. I deemed the risk imminent and unacceptable. Throughout this process I have been quizzed by police and MH services as to why nothing had been done sooner, and had to tell numerous persons that it was the CRC who failed to act. I just hope that we have managed to mitigate a serious incident especially as this offender had previously threatened violence towards Police Officers but did not turn up for the conference. I have yet to meet this man but it is a very worrying situation that risk was able to escalate so highly without any breach sanctions. The case was identified as having MH problems Pre-Sentence and a psych report, and a PSR recommended a MHTR that was never imposed."

Somehow I do not think that this is a one off occurrence.

Opposition day debate on Prisons and Probation
As you would expect we have lost no time getting in touch with Jo Stevens MP on her elevation to the Labour Front Bench Justice Team. I am sure you join me in sending Napo's congratulations to Jo who has shown herself to be a true friend to this union.

Napo has prepared a comprehensive briefing following the 4th post TR report by the Probation Inspectorate which we will be releasing to the media in the hope that they will run with it in advance of Wednesday afternoons scheduled debate. Of course we face the usual competing difficulties in securing coverage which range from the almost daily terrorist atrocities from across the globe to the pressing imperatives such as what colour underpants Justin Bieber is wearing and the latest from East Enders.

The discussion at this weeks meeting of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group laid bare the disgusting conditions within the Prison system and how so many politicians stand idly by doing nothing tangible to address the situation. Our report focuses on the threats to public safety and raises a series of questions that can easily be asked by those who fell able to turn up for the debate.

Future of Social Work
Along with Jay Barlow I spent a fascinating day at Church House yesterday at a conference organised by BASW Which attracted a large gathering of Social Workers, Managers, Service Users, Academics, Journalists, the Chief Social Worker for England (adults), and the Chief Social Worker for England (children), an MP and many others.

We will do a fuller report in due course but the key themes covered included:

The threat of privatisation by Government, the need to stand together and lobby with a strong collective voice, the need to improve public trust in Social Workers, the maintenance of high standards in Social Work education, and the challenges to good practice.

A series of round table discussions and two lively plenaries concluded that:

  • Privatisation is further along than people realise.
  • We need to value what we have before we dismantle it.
  • The need for organisations, trade unions and professional associations to put aside our differences and form a strong voice and digital platform for us all and to include service users in that.
  • To develop a standing conference across the UK to formally bring together the various groups.
  • Such alliances need to better reflect the diversity of the Social Work profession.
  • The public need to be better informed about what social workers do.
  • We must continue to value open and ethical and positive social work.
  • Adult and Children’s services to work more closely.
There was a recurring theme throughout the conference that unions and associations within the social work sector need to work together to improve trust and good practice, but most importantly to resist privatisation.

64 comments:

  1. To all SWM DLNR CRC

    When we launched Our Plan to Changes Lives in November last year I acknowledged that it would mean big changes for us. As you know we are on a journey to transform how our CRCs operate in a new environment and invest in our mission to provide services to transform lives and reduce crime.

    Our revised operating model will enable frontline probation practitioners to have more time to spend on direct supervision and skill development work with service users to support them to change, stop offending and start rebuilding their lives.

    Our plans have been designed together with CRC colleagues and other experts to retain key specialisms of both DLNR and SWM, whilst also making it easier for colleagues to do their jobs in order to deliver better outcomes and a more efficient service.

    I know that many of you are looking forward to some of the changes and innovations that are planned in the way we work to further reduce reoffending and protect the communities we serve. However, I also understand that due to the current level of uncertainty some of you may feel unable to be fully confident about the future. To remain fully committed, i know that you need more information about what is planned next.

    ReplyDelete
  2. continue...

    Following a period of complex work we are now in a position to share more information. We have shared our proposals with the Trade Unions earlier today in a carefully planned process leading to the start of formal consultation with colleagues. Indeed it is important we take time to discuss out plans with everyone. That is why we will be bringing together groups of colleagues for briefings with HR and the senior leadership team over the next few days.

    I appreciate that it has been a long wait to get to this point and that the next few weeks will be difficult as we move through the consultation process. At the end of this period, a number of colleagues will be leaving the organisation and it is my hope that we can help people to leave positively, while thanking them for their contribution. For those who are staying, some will be in different roles and locations and all of us will be learning to work in new ways, but our commitment and passion to deliver excellent probation service will remain.

    I want to thank all of you for your work during this time. Your ongoing commitment to the work of probation is evident in our performance improvements, the many stories I hear of positive impacts, the contributions many of you have made to our new operating model and the feedback that I receive from our partners and service users. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '...bringing together groups of colleagues for briefings...' This is bypassing the TUs with whom they should be consulting. These 'briefings' will soon be called 'consultations' and that way they cover their backs and still bypass the TUs, as they can then say they know what the staff think because they have consulted directly with them. Staff should boycott these proposed briefings or at least get it in writing that in no way should they be considered as consultative in the context of redundancy.

      Delete
  3. That nps om is a gob schite. If nps allocated the case properly at court or had completed a robust risk assessment at court resources in the crc would have followed risk. Get your own house in order before you start taking pops at the crc. Jokers. Can't wait for your budget to be announced in April

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes 17.35. Agreed. NPS think there better than us. They are not!!

      Delete
    2. Was thinking the same. I'd rather be made redundant than work in the NPS.

      Delete
    3. Oh dear. Yes unfortunatly NPS bit like episode of the apprentice. Correction - a series. Too many smart arses who know it all. Mouth and no trousers.

      Delete
    4. Boom 17.48. You're on the ££££ all mouth and no trousers (or should I say accurate risk assessment) x

      Delete
    5. I can only see risk assessments at psr stage getting worse if E3 is implemented: psos assessing risk then passing on to CRC without a po having even seen the case. Genius!

      Delete
    6. E3 had started. PSOs are writing PSRs. I was allocated a case written by a PSR PSO author

      Delete
    7. 17.37 In NPS we no r gramma

      Delete
    8. Who cares about grammar on a blog. At least 17.37 can risk assess hahaha

      Delete
    9. Look, we need to be able to discuss these issues without this nastiness it really does demean us all.
      The reality is NPS staff do NOT want to write rubbish PSRs but in one hour that is the standard that will be delivered. PSO staff in courts have tried to speak out especially about having to do DV reports,they were then instructed to do as directed (with the threat of discipline and capability).

      Delete
    10. Capability for not writing a report. You seem very confused 18.34. You're not incapable for refusing to do something. NPS are getting destroyed on here. I blame Jim for irresponsible blogging as that nps om's comments was always going to set both sides off against one another.

      Delete
    11. 18.16 you must be one of graylings experts positioned into the NPS lol

      Delete
    12. "I blame Jim for irresponsible blogging as that nps om's comments was always going to set both sides off against one another."

      What an interesting comment! So not poor judgement on the part of the General Secretary publishing this contribution in his blog on the Napo website and therefore available to be viewed by anyone?

      It seems all I have to do to point out the dysfunctionality at the top of Napo is just republish without comment.

      Delete
    13. fed up of the gradist nonsense being bandied around, you don't need a piece of paper & 3 years at uni to be able to appropriately identify risk.

      Delete
    14. I agree 20.04. I'm a PSO and I consider my risk assessment and risk management as good as any PO in the NPS

      Delete
    15. Yes well this is what they want a divide an conquer agenda for us to squabble. POs you have been too long in the tooth claiming a specialism after training but never able to identify what set you apart from a well trained and differently well qualified graduate PSO . It was this significant failure to get involved in a trade union dispute and stand together. POs let their grade dictate a snobbery that was and remains the downfall. Look on as NPS the land of the Civil Service demonstrate the qualification of PO a is totally irrelevant the job you did is not the job you will be doing and that is why Courts are PSO Victims are PSOs and report writing and risk assessment yes that's right Report writing and risk assessment are now PSOs. In the NPS where you all ran to and have been undermined royally. So as POs become equal status to pso you might learn how we have been feeling for years under the rubbish status bar on pay and conditions that you have supported. Still we have to unite in the fight but on equal terms and despite the rubbish from the GS blog we have to re-unite !

      Delete
    16. Yes a really helpful contribution there anon 20:33.

      Delete
    17. NPS POs are no longer strutting around the place like top dogs.

      Delete
    18. Anon 20:10 and 20:33 - perhaps if you stepped away from your pity party for long enough you would realise that grade boundaries are there to protect you, not hold you back.

      No-one is saying that PSOs are less capable, but if you choose to take on tasks beyond your job description without the extra remuneration, then I'm afraid you're just a bit of a mug.

      I look forward to your reaction to a comment in 18 months time that "PSOs were never able to identify what set them apart from a well-trained and differently qualified volunteer"...

      Delete
    19. I've never seen a PO "strutting around". For the record I'm an NPS PO and I consider my skills and those of most of my NPS colleagues better than most PSO's. This includes risk assessment, risk management, engagement, partnership working, family work, rehabilitation, presentation in formal settings, and more. The reason being that most PSO's are not as good as most PO's in the NPS (and CRC's) is the differences in levels of training, experience gained on the job, and that many PO's tend to join probation with an existing level of education and experience.

      Delete
    20. 21.08 like the dinosaur, the PO grade could become extinct. Better training, more graduates starting as PSOs and greater willingness to do what is asked of them makes PSOs just as good, if not better, than POs. You know it. PSOs are a look to the future. Get of your high PO horse and give respect where it's due

      Delete
    21. Cos you're the mug!

      Delete
    22. Spell "off" correctly, Anon 21:16, and there might be more respect for you, though you show little enough in your comments.

      "Better training" is simply incorrect. More PSOs starting as graduates is a valid point, however, though those that I know all, without exception, aspire to becoming POs.

      Delete
    23. 21.12 you make some big assertions. I agree with 21,16. I also see NPS POs strutting around like they where the biz at the split. Oh how times have changed. There is now no difference between the grades

      Delete
    24. I've been a PSO with an undergraduate psychology degree and then later went on to qualify as a PO. I've been in NPS and CRC. Neither is 'better' than the other but contributors above are right: if PSOs are doing the work they should be paid for it because the role deserves it, and if a PO qualification is not required then there is nothing stopping volunteers taking over in the future. The only winners if we don't recognise this is those trying (and suceeding) in dismantling the service we work for. The losers will be all of us, our families and our communities.

      Delete
    25. oh ffs I've heard it all now. As they say whatever trevor

      Delete
    26. Well there you are PO status conscious doing a job that you claim is better because as a PO it has be better. Than what PSOs are doing and have been doing the same job for years. Your stuck in old values of a bygone era. I want a professional demarcation and a separate responsibility grade of course we all might. The problems arose when all the PO graded SPO devolved your jobs . Eroded your terms and destroyed the PO role from within. Well done. As for risks its all in the tick box and any volunteer could do it but we all want pay. This is a race to the bottom and this squabble helps speed it up. POs still unable to unite the debate is about the right to work and the conditions of service . SPO should be retained in all CRCs as a properly qualified Po as this sets the public standards of expectation and belief in a professional service albeit privately run. Set the same standard in the NPS and we might start a climb back to grade responsibility although remember equal work for equal pay something the PO grade never liked. Ask any one of them. This agenda actually stops PSO exploitation and levels the field a bit course you don't like it POs.

      Delete
    27. Risk is tick box? No. Risk assessment is much, much more than this.

      Delete
    28. 21:37, your post is all over the place. You say POs should unite with PSOs, yet you're just as divisive.

      Your comment about risk being tick box is so far wide of the mark I am astonished you even made it. An OASys risk assessment can be completed just by ticking the boxes, of course it can, but that doesn't make it any use to anyone. Anyone could write in the boxes on the FDR template, but that doesn't make them good quality work that can be relied upon by courts, colleagues or anyone else.

      Delete
    29. Risk is only a tick box for nps court officers. Most PSRs have little analysis and lots of boxes ticked. E3 will increase this poor quality having an impact on nps and crc. I'm writing to napo as E3 had to stop. Why isn't the napo GS and the napo communications team all over this?

      Delete
    30. I love this blog and I love the probation service. Reading some of the above has me on stitches. Despite all that is going on. Everyone remains passionate, has an opinion, talks part logical and part illogical with napo or TR always being blamed in any debate.

      Delete
    31. Come April we are probably going to see all those nps POs come running to the CRCs with your tails between your legs. We will be good enough for you then.....

      Delete
    32. NPS vs CRC - why can't you lot work in the interests of the offender instead of throwing each other under the bus?
      We used to be colleagues in the same organizations - now all I see is people who won't cross the room to speak to each other in order to actually help resolve an issue with one of our offenders and will instead try and cast blame - shame on you!

      Delete
    33. After posting at 21:12 it's interesting to read the following posts. As a profession do we not recognise the importance of qualifications, training and development? Probation officers have had professional training for over 70 years. Yet here we have probation staff stating how well they do without it, and therefore having a hand in the de-professionalisation of their own profession. Wise up and smell the coffee; first role boundaries are eroded, then the training and responsibility is removed, then the pay structure is harmonised at a lower rate, and then the jobs are given to any idiot and his dog.

      Delete
    34. Reports coming through from NPS court officers in our area are shockingly poor. Very little information. No risk of serious harm needed indicated for cases of serious violence where the perps have previous history of weapons and they have just gone and committed yet another serious violent offence eith weapons.The sifting process clearly rubbish as some staff are just not up to the job.

      Delete
    35. Oh Dear, another sad person who never cut the mustard and got through to the next round of DIPsw, DIPpss or PQF. You thumb twiddling muppet!

      Delete
    36. 3.03 your bubble will burst in the April and I can't wait to see you squirm like you gloat at our situation.

      Delete
  4. This latest Napo missive says: 'As we predicted even before the ink was dry on the CRC share sale contracts our members are now seeing the full extent of the real agenda behind the TR Programme.'

    Did Napo really 'predict' this? As recently as last March, after the ink had dried, they were saying this in a Napo Branch Memo of 25/3/15:

    'The unions do not expect CRCs to propose any compulsory redundancies during the term of the private contracts and branches should be vigilant in opposing any such proposals that emerge after 1 September 2015.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of us reading and recalling those words Nipper. We are wondering if the GS is really trying to convince us of his rewriting of history or if he believes it himself? He appears to contradict his own record, are we seeking his clarification on this point? Or will we get another spaghetti answer? It may be a bit irrelevant really that he does not agree the contracts although his statement is conflicting. The key point is he did agree the Transfer arrangements and they did contain a limitation before redundancies, in fact then, he agreed the redundancies, life of the contract or not. This act alone damages every members legitimate right to claim unfair dismissals at ET regardless of the consultations fiasco.

      Delete
  5. Such a sad state that TR is leading to some in probation to tear each other apart when unity would be a better option. The system has been foisted upon us against our wishes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you expect when we're mugged of like that and it's published for everyone to read.

      Delete
    2. I don't know why the general sec published this story: he does know Napo represent CRCs too, yes?

      Delete
  6. None of the unions involved with probation staff had any idea what was coming, otherwise they would never have signed off on any agreements. I'd love to sue them under the trades (union) description act, but what's the point? CRC, E3, call it whatever you like - this Tory government has sold us all down the river, so regardless of Cameron's insistence on English language skills for Muslims we'd better start spending our meagre redundancy monies on Mandarin or Russian because they will be the masters of our infrastructure, our industry & our power supplies before 2020.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fancy a nice cup of tea, anyone?

      Delete
  7. Jim could you dedicate a blog post to enforcement or rather lack of it. Sentencers have a right to know that the sentences they impose are not as robustly managed as they think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course - but I need something to kick it off - could you pen something, your experiences suitably disguised in order to protect anonymity?

      Delete
    2. I'm doing many more applications to take orders back to court to get requirements removed because they were unachievable, or just plain unsuitable in the first place, than breaches these days. Our new CRC masters don't like us breaching, but they definitely don't like us allowing programme requirements to run out of time. Rumours are flying that the local benches are really not very happy with this, and the poor NPS court staff are starting to get it in the neck...

      Delete
    3. a lot of people saying they'd rather do the time than have a CO,I'm seeing some really top-heavy sentences handed down. My main bugbear is the double whammy of punitive ie curfews AND upw, I clearly remember in my court officer days it should be one or the other but not both and certainly not with an SSO that is another punitive sanction.

      Delete
  8. I don't think the issue of enforcement is clear cut. I'm commenting as a court PO. I've been in court when either a breach is being heard or there is provision of a progress report and there have been a number of missed appointments, in addition to numerous attempts to engage the subject. The magistrates have not necessarily been critical of the service that was responsible for supervising the individual in spite of the individual's compliance being poor and hardly any appointments being kept. Comments by magistrates have been to the effect that the individual has been given plenty of chances but they haven't taken the help offered.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I should add to the above post, that in those circumstances, it is highly unlikely that community supervision will be considered. I've also witnessed benches declining applications to amend orders when the application is to have a programme removed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Currently enjoying Jacques Peretti's documentary about the British Isles (shurely Cayman Islands?) where charity replaces public service provision, where private investment replaces state finance, where the wealthy are made more wealthy, where the British Govt are wholly responsible.

    Lordy, Lordy, we're in for a special treat as Dave & his chums squeeze us dry while they get fat. And in the meantime we'll beat each other to death as we're set against each other by the misdirection & division created by the British Govt.

    Just look at the posts on this thread alone... Its terrifying. Rats eating rats on a sinking ship.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Absolutely 22:00. The film Pride provides lessons in solidarity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ok so we need to stick together. Where do we start? PSOs are going to be given extra training to wrtie PSRs, do we need to be fighting for them to get the pay they deserve doing that role? I'd be up for that. (A PO)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erm, no. We should be fighting to maintain the professional role and qualification of the probation officers. If PSO's or others are to do particular parts of our work then they should be required to achieve qualified status, and then they can be paid accordingly.

      Delete
    2. therein lies the problem - PO scales are a bit high - what's the top of the scale again - 30k probably more.

      Delete
    3. Top of the scale is about £36k. For the work we do, responsibility involved, qualifications required, etc, it's actually not that much. It also takes a very long time to reach the top of the scale, and in the meantime we are not paid overtime.

      For PSO's to actually be arguing to take on more responsibility without increased pay or access to professional qualifications is very stupid on their part. This is like women arguing for men to be paid less in order to reduce the pay divide at the top. Instead be intelligent people and argue for more not less!!

      Delete
    4. Are you mad. I've written PSRs. Anyone could write one. No skill is involved. E3 countries don't use PSRs as responsibility lies with the judge and their systems are fine.

      Delete
    5. Not anyone can write a PSR properly. In any case a PO's job is more than writing PSR's. Also we are speaking about the UK CJS which is world renowned, or was until Chris Grayling started to mess with it, so little point comparing what they may do elsewhere.

      Delete
    6. Quite a few people (or is it just the one person) with a huge chip on his/her shoulder.
      POs should write reports. PSOs shouldn't. But they do, they have for years in West Yorkshire. Yes some reports by PSOs have been better than some by POs are vice versa. That's not the point. The point is POs are paid to do it. I agree that the people that agreed to write reports without any remuneration were foolish to do so and paved the way for other PSOs to be exploited and feel they have no choice but to write them.

      Delete
    7. It's not just PSR's. Now they're moving the goalposts and require PSO's to do nearly all what PO's do without any of the pay, training or qualifying certificates that PO's receive. Instead I doubt PO pay levels will last or the PO qualification remains when unqualified PSO's are doing the job for less. A surprising move and his will probably be a pattern in both NPS and CRC.

      Delete
    8. AGM voted down a pso motion written to prevent this. POs argued it down. Get what you vote for.

      Delete