E3 - Unison Verdict

1. Introduction

UNISON invited all members working for the NPS to complete a questionnaire to inform UNISON’s on-going response to the E3 consultation. Members were initially asked to respond by no later than Monday 7 December 2015, but we extended the survey into January in an attempt to improve the level of responses.

We did not achieve the turnout we would have liked in the survey, either on account of communication difficulties in reaching members, or with members finding it hard to respond to an on-line survey using NPS software.

Notwithstanding the response rate, we are publishing the figures, and the personal testimony of respondents, to reflect the time that those members who did respond gave to completing the survey.

UNISON’s high level response to E3 is as follows:

• NPS and its trade unions should negotiate an E3 Organisational Change Policy and Procedure. Such procedures are currently being negotiated by the unions for our members in the CRCs, and it looks very odd that the NPS has not suggested something similar for its own staff. An E3 Organisational Change Policy and Procedure would give UNISON members the confidence that their job security, pay and conditions and career opportunities were going to be properly protected in the roll out of E3. At the moment, neither the NPS, nor UNISON, nor staff have any idea how E3 is actually going to be implemented and we need to get a collective agreement on this as a matter of urgency.

• The lack of progress in setting up a formal negotiating body for NPS must now be addressed as a priority to enable the NPS and unions to negotiate the introduction of E3. NPS has wasted 18 months since its creation by refusing to accept that it needed its own Joint Negotiating and Consultative Committee (JNCC) and tried to muddle through negotiations with the unions with informal talks. This has led to total confusion as to which contractual policies now apply to NPS staff, at the very time that staff and employer need this information to be absolutely certain. UNISON calls on NPS to respond quickly to the unions’ proposals to reform the collective bargaining machinery to enable the formal negotiation of all E3 related contractual matters. At present, there has been no agreement, for example, to vary former Probation Trust terms and conditions in relation to staff mobility.

• The E3 proposal for all staff to be multi-skilled and transferrable across specialist teams has not generally been well received and requires a re-think in relation to what is achievable or desirable by NPS
• The redeployment of PSOs out of the prison estate as part of the OM in Prisons Project should be brought within the remit of E3 to ensure that staff involved in potential redeployments are not treated less favourably than other NPS staff, particularly with reference to the agreement of an E3 Organisational Change Policy and Procedure
• Approved Premises can become enabling environments, but not if NPS privatises evening and night security
• UNISON will vigorously oppose any privatisation of AP functions
• Private sector security contracts in APs, which have previously been let in some NPS Divisions, should be brought back in house to raise standards and safety levels 
• Private sector cleaning and catering staff working for Interserve and Amey in APs should be brought back in house as part of the NPS review of the Home Office FM contract
• Proposals for administrative hubs have not been well understood and perhaps need to be re-presented with more detail
• Career opportunities for case administrators should be improved as part of E3
• More work needs to be done to consult on the appropriate mix of staff in court teams
• PSRs should be reserved to POs in certain specified circumstances
• More clarity is required for members to respond to the E3 proposals regarding the 7 category tiering framework and the holding of medium risk cases by PSOs
• The role of the Offender Supervisor should be retained
• UNISON opposes the use of volunteers in community supervision
• SPOs should continue to countersign all parole reports
• Video links for parole hearings will not work
• Much more work needs to be done to articulate the NPS vision for the future of victims work, as most respondents on this issue were unable to make a definitive choice of answer to the consultation questions
• Concerns of VLOs regarding new job descriptions and job evaluation need to be properly addressed via the NPS Organisational Change Policy and Procedure proposed above
• UNISON will oppose any cost cutting measures in E3 that impact on terms and conditions, job security, health and safety or public safety
• All E3 proposals must be subject to a full equality audit as part of on-going consultation with the trade unions

2. Synopsis

This survey is split into the following sections:

• Information on UNISON survey respondents
• Responses to general questions on E3
• Responses to occupational specific questions on E3
• UNISON members’ general comments on E3

3. Information on UNISON Survey Respondents

Work Area / % of Respondents

• Approved Premises 37% 
• Case Administration 24%
• Courts 14%
• Corporate Services 12%
• Community Supervision 7%
• Custody 5%
• Victims 2%
• Management 0%
• Youth Offending 0%

4. Responses to General Questions on E3

a. Do you agree that NPS staff should be multi-skilled and work across the organisation in different roles within the same pay band?

Yes: 20%  No: 68%  Don’t know: 12%

b. Do you think it is possible for staff to move between specialist teams on a regular basis as E3 suggests?

Yes: 12% No: 82% Don’t know: 6%

The responses to both these general questions suggests that there is a high level of opposition among members to one of the central aims of E3, which is to move all staff onto generic job descriptions.

The E3 Blueprint sets out that: ‘The NPS workforce will be multi-skilled with the ability to work across the organisation in different roles within the same pay band. There will be specialist teams, but staff will be encouraged to move between teams on a regular basis to preserve and develop their range of professional skills and experience.’

The high level of opposition to this central plank of E3 suggests that more work needs to be done by NPS to articulate this proposal. To date, there has been relatively little engagement with unions on this core principle of E3 and UNISON would welcome this beginning as soon as possible.

5. Responses to Occupational Specific Questions

5.1 APPROVED PREMISES

a. Can all approved premises become enabling environments?

Yes: 55%  No: 17%  Don’t know 28%

b. Do you agree with a standard electronic referral process and a central referral hub in each division for approved premises?

Yes: 34%  No: 45%  Don’t know 21%

c. Do you support the proposed standard staffing model for APs:

i. Double cover at all times:

Yes: 93%  No: 0%  Don’t know 7%

ii. AP manager for each premises:

Yes: 67%  No: 30%  Don’t know 3%

iii. 0.5 admin/0.5 financial admin role for each AP

Yes: 47%  No: 39%  Don’t know: 14%

iv. Harmonised sessional payments

Yes: 52%  No: 30%  Don’t know 18%

a. Should AP staff roles and grades be standardised?

Yes: 48%  No: 41%  Don’t know 11%

b. Should AP night and weekend supervision be privatised?

Yes: 0%  No: 93%  No pref. 7%

Members working in approved premises were the most likely of UNISON’s members to complete the E3 on-line survey. This clearly suggests that they are extremely engaged with the implications of the E3 proposals for their current way of working.

There is strong support for approved premises becoming enabling environments. However, the fairly obvious point was made by respondents that privatisation would frustrate the delivery of this enabling environment. This is because it will be impossible to deliver the enabling regime in the evening, or at night, with a private sector security guard on duty who is on the national minimum wage and whose appetite for the enabling environment is going to be influenced by his or her pay and conditions of service, training and supervision.

Opinion is fairly split among members on the idea of a central electronic referral process

There is broad support for the proposed staffing model for APs.

There are split views on standardising job roles and grades in APs, but this is not surprising in relation to some of the disparities which exist between the former Probation Trusts in relation to role and grading. This is clearly a part of E3 which is going to have to be very carefully handled to maintain staff confidence in role/grading outcomes. UNISON does not expect that there will be any band 1 roles in approved premises, as any role which has contact with service users would expect at the very least a band 2 outcome. How we deal with disparities in pay banding for the same roles across the AP estate is something which should form part of the Organisational Change Policy and Procedure proposed by UNISON above.

Not surprisingly, there is near total opposition to the privatisation of evening and night cover in approved premises. The experience of privatising cleaning and catering in APs has been woeful since NOMS first put these services out to tender over 10 years ago. Poor quality and high costs did not lead to NOMS cancelling these contracts, because they were too big to fail.

Privatising evening and night security in APs is only about saving money and nothing to do with the laudable aim of making each AP an enabling environment. UNISON will oppose any proposal to privatise this work and will seek to bring the existing AP security contracts with private sector security firms in some Divisions back in house. The AP environment is too risky to let the private sector loose in, with its poor track record of a low wage, fast turnover, and insecure workforce. What worse staffing provision could you choose for approved premises?

UNISON members who work in APs know full well that any contract with the private sector to deliver evening and night security will lead to job insecurity for directly employed hostel staff. This is completely unacceptable and NOMS should step back from its privatisation plans immediately.

UNISON believes that the E3 project provides the opportunity to build a professional in-house team to deliver high quality services to service users in hostels. We want to see cleaners and catering staff brought back in house from the failed FM contracts in order to make them part of this directly employed quality employee team. All staff who work in APs are part of the enabling environment, including AP cooks, housekeepers and cleaners. Staff working in these roles for Interserve and Amey at present could come back into the directly employed workforce as part of the renegotiation of the current Home Office FM contract. Many of these staff still retain their NNC pay and conditions under TUPE, so assimilation into the directly employed workforce would be straightforward. UNISON urges NOMS to make this happen.

Here are some of the personal testimonies of UNISON AP members who responded to our survey:

“There appears to be a complete lack of understanding on how approved premises work! The current rotas used in ...............APs, for example, don’t currently comply with the Working Time Directive. None of the suggestions for waking nights takes into account staff cover for leave or sickness during so-called day shifts. As things currently stand, it is difficult to cover these shortfalls even now. With fewer resources to cover it, it will make the situation almost impossible. The admin staff in an AP don’t just do reception and finance! It’s a multi skilled position within an AP and involves facility management, procurement and maintaining numerous records regarding health, safety and fire. I have years of experience with rotas and rosters. Sadly nobody has any interest in covering the operation in a safe and practical way. Staff health and well being (work life balance) has not been considered so far. This would appear to be a money saving exercise at the expense of staff safety.”

“Staff are being asked to do more with no extra payment. AP staff have just been through a review 2 years ago and all roles were downgraded. Do not think it is safe practice working with private personnel in AP, also too much confidential information in work place could be accessed by contractor.”

“I have worked in Probation as a full time and as a sessional worker. The health and safety of the work place is so important. Privatisation of this practice would be a total nightmare.”

“2 x Band 3 during the day, and possibly 2 x Band 2 at night would be a safe working regime for approved premises. Sadly, it is my understanding that NPS cannot afford that structure, but they can find money for a new tier of on-call managers, plus an area manager’s post. So it would appear that cutting the bandings for face to face staff, will balance the books for this? “

“I have major concerns with the replacement of night and weekend supervisors in the AP with security or agency workers. The AP environment cannot run effectively with only 1 experienced member of staff on. Double waking cover is great if both members of staff are experienced NPS staff with training and ability. I've worked with security and agency staff in the AP environment before and they are not helpful in difficult situations. They generally have little or no intentional self harm or suicide training, and generally aren't allowed to even communicate with offenders. How can this be helpful? Cheaper yes, but certainly not delivering excellence.”

“In principal the E3, if implemented fairly, should be a good idea, however, I definitely disagree with any privatisation whatsoever, and the employing of night security guards is a ridiculous idea. It was tried in South Yorkshire a few years ago and failed epically. Also, all the staff in AP's have to work a multitude of roles to enable the AP to function properly, so to lower certain grades will be very demoralising, and will cause staff resentment.”

“In respect of APs we have been told that there will be no compulsory redundancies and that affected staff will be found posts outside the Division - however most AP Supervisors are band 2 practitioners and there simply are no suitable alternative posts for the majority. The only posts available would be administrative roles which might suit some but for which many have neither the inclination, nor the skill set to be competent at. The out-sourcing contract would undoubtedly lead to a reduction in directly employed AP staff and to move away for many to an administrative role from a 30-year career in offender-facing work. This would simply not be acceptable. Nor do I think in law it could be seen as suitable alternative employment, as it is in no way similar in profile or skills required, nor would remuneration be the same with loss of unsocial hours payments. If this is to happen, then surely the posts become redundant, and voluntary redundancy and early retirement for over 55s should be offered as per the enhanced scheme negotiated for TR, as these job losses will be a direct consequence of the reorganisation. I cannot overstate the importance of two trained and public sector staff working together at evenings and weekends as this is often when most difficult incidents take place and the support of a colleague is vital in sharing the load and ensuring the wellbeing of both members of staff.” 

“Working in an AP as a Manager has demonstrated that agency staff are not as well-trained or committed to the cause of reducing reoffending and risk. Even those with some personal motivation are hampered by the lack of access to information sharing and gathering. It's fine to say that agency staff will be on duty with contracted staff but in reality, absence (especially long term) and ongoing job vacancies dictate that there will be many occasions where agency staff are accompanied by sessional workers who are not employed by NPS. That often means no NPS staff on site out of office hours and the inherent decrease in skill base and risk management”

5.2 CASE ADMINISTRATION / CORPORATE SERVICES

Case administrators who responded to our survey, were evenly split on the issue of whether an LDU could be managed by a head of cluster, but most were unable to answer the question. This suggests that the E3 proposal here needs more explanation in order for staff to understand its implications. Many respondents expressed concern that the E3 proposals for case administration were less well developed than other professional areas in the consultation. UNISON shares this concern and asks NOMS to address it.

There was a large degree of support for the idea of a senior case administrator, but not everyone agreed.

The lack of career opportunities for case administrators came across strongly in some of the personal testimonies that follow and UNISON would like the issue of training and development to be central to the E3 roll-out for the reasons given by respondents on this issue.

Here are some of the individual testimonies from case administrators who responded to our survey:

“Another thing that has not been mentioned in this survey which is very important to me is progression within the NPS. I am a Case Administrator and at the moment there is nowhere for me to progress to. I realise that they want to make a Senior Case Administrator role, but this appears to be it and there is nowhere to go after that. I would like to become a Probation Officer, or at least have the option to do this, but at the moment you have to have a relevant degree to even apply for this role. I know they have looked at changing this but it looks like you still have to have relevant qualifications to even apply. I feel this is very limiting and discriminatory and will mean that only a certain sort of person will be getting these roles (generally young women straight out of university with no other experiences). In the past people from all different walks of life and different ages have been able to apply for the Probation Officer role and I feel that the NPS has lost this diversity. I would like the option to progress within the service and feel without options I will be forced to leave the NPS, which I really don’t want to do as I have been here for a long time. I feel without options for CAs, NPS will lose dedicated and experienced staff.”

“The admin proposals are very vague and raise more questions than give answers. There are no specifics on how things would work in each division, as the local arrangements would very much depend on geographical area and number of offices it would cover. How would the enforcement hubs/court admin hubs work - would there be one per court? Where would the senior administrators be recruited from? Is there a scope for the CAs to progress into that role? At the moment the NPS teams have been divided into various teams and it is not consistent across the country. In some areas there are specific court teams with designated CAs, at others the CAs cover all work (offender management and courts) so it's difficult to see how the hubs would work. Would this mean the teams will be re-arranged and staff would have to relocate to supply enough cover for each hub? There is no specific training for the CAs - they have to be trained by the existing staff without them getting any workload relief to do that. Having a new role of a senior CA would help as, at the moment, CAs are being lined managed by SPOs who do not have sufficient knowledge about the CA role to support them and offer guidance.”

“My concern is about job evaluation and downgrading. I am currently a Band 3 and I believe that if my role is down banded, my manager will still expect me to perform my full role, for less money. I also fear there are moves to remove my role altogether.”

“There would be uproar with case administrators if there become 'senior' case administrators. Nearly all the case administrators in our NPS have worked there the same amount of time and no one is better than the other.”

5.3 COURTS

a. Can 90% of same-day short format court reports be completed on the day?

Yes: 9%  No: 64%  Don’t know 27%

b. Should trained PSOs form the majority of staff within court teams and prepare 75% of reports?

Yes: 18%  No: 36%  Don’t know 36%

c. Should PSRs be reserved to POs only in certain specified circumstances?

Yes: 73%  No: 18%  Don’t know 9%

d. Is the new 7 category tiering framework workable/safe?

Yes: 0%  No: 36%  Don’t know 64%

e. Should PSOs hold low and some medium risk cases (up to C2 in the new tiering framework)?

Yes: 36%  No: 9%  Don’t know 55%

f. Should the role of Offender Supervisor be removed?

Yes: 0%  No: 64%  Don’t know 36%

The overriding impression from the responses from members working in courts is that the E3 proposals are lacking in clarity. The most popular response to half the questions above was ‘Don’t Know’, suggesting that more work is necessary to communicate the vision that NPS is driving towards in relation to courts work.

However, it is very clear that the proposal for 90% of same-day short format court reports to be produced on the day has little support - only 9% of respondents ticked this box. Similarly, only a minority of 18% believed that trained PSOs should form the majority of staff within court teams and prepare 75% of reports. A clear majority of 64% believed that the role of Offender Supervisor should not be abolished.

Here is one response which sums up a lot of the views above:

“I feel aggrieved in circumstances where I will be expected to conduct work with domestic violence abusers / sex offenders at court in role of Probation Services Officer. It is for a reason that I have chosen to stay in this role rather than train as Probation Officer. To have this work stuck on to the job description to save money feels discriminatory. It does not matter that we are to receive 'training' - this is a significant change in role and should not be compulsory. Probation Officers are currently writing reports on DV cases and sex offences. Those reports are adjourned to be completed because they are complex matters by nature and require time for risk assessment, enquiries, assessment for programmes etc. Probation Officers are given the time to do this. Even so, POs are under pressure. To expect PSOs to undertake this work at court would not be efficient or effective. Problems will simply arise further down the line if inexperienced and / or staff feeling aggrieved are compelled to undertake this type of work. It appears that this forms part of de-skilling of the Probation Officer role, and in my view is neither safe with regard to protection of the public, or equitable for staff.”

5.4 COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

1. Do you support the use of volunteers in community supervision?

Yes: 11%  No: 89%  Don’t know: 0%

2. Should SPOs continue to countersign all parole reports?

Yes: 78%  No: 11%  Don’t know 11%

3. Can OMs contribute to most parole hearings by telephone or video link?

Yes: 33%  No: 56%  Don’t know: 11%

4. Can staff use measures short of recall when safe to do so?

Yes: 67%  No: 11%  Don’t know: 22%

5. Do you support the idea of specialist divisional units to manage foreign national prisoners?

Yes: 56%  No: 22%  Don’t know: 22%

The responses of members in relation to community supervision were more definitive than the responses in relation to courts.

There is clear opposition to the use of volunteers in community supervision. This is not surprising, because staff will be concerned at the potential for job substitution by a government which is introducing volunteers across the public sector as a means of back-filling job cuts. If NPS has any proposals to introduce volunteering into its work this will require the careful negotiation of a protocol on volunteering with the probation unions. Such a protocol would have to be explicit in ruling out job substitution and deal with the important issues of recruitment, vetting, training, supervision, costs, discipline and accountability.

5.5 VICTIMS

a. Is a national case management system for victim work a good idea?

Yes: 33%  No: 0%  Don’t know: 67%

b. Will it be workable to have victim admin work in specialised regional or national hubs?

Yes: 17%  No: 17%  Don’t know: 66%

c. Should VLOs work in specialist teams?

Yes: 17%  No: 17%  Don’t know: 66% 

d. Should the VLO role be reviewed and evaluated?

Yes: 33%  No: 0%  Don’t know: 67%

The responses from members working as victim liaison officers, like those from members working in courts, suggest that NPS has not articulated its vision of victims work sufficiently well to date. The majority of members ticked the ‘Don’t Know’ box to all the questions above.

5.6 YOUTH OFFENDING SERVICES

a. Should NPS staff be seconded to the YOS work with high risk cases?

Yes: 40%  No: 40%  Don’t know: 20%

6. GENERAL COMMENTS:

Here are members’ responses to an invitation in our survey to elaborate on any of their answers above, or to make a general comment about E3.

“E3 is essentially about a race to the bottom and an attempt to undermine our existing Terms and Conditions. Levels of expertise will be diluted and the levels of service currently offered to partner organisations undermined. It is not reasonable to ask essentially untrained staff to offer sentencing proposals and provide full risk analysis of offenders on the day of sentence. Without specific levels of qualifications being a requirement of the role at court, untrained and inexperienced staff could be making uninformed proposals for sentence. The Magistrates and sentencing forums are entitled to expect minimum levels of expertise from people completing reports. If this is not the case, the current respect held for NPS by the whole legal profession and court users will be eroded. Furthermore, important risk 'triggers' may be missed at sentence stage of the process. Probation Officers are highly trained professionals, who are aware not only of obvious circumstances of offending behaviours, but also the underlying likelihood of more risky behaviour in the future. In cases of Domestic Violence, this understanding acts as a major safeguard against further offending and assists in victim protection. In my career over many years, PSO staff have been 'briefed' on initiatives and sentencing practice over several days. Probation Officers meanwhile have undergone proper training over weeks and sometime months to enable competence. The grading structure present in Local Trusts ensured that this expertise was easily accessible by less well-trained staff. The proposal to staff courts with PSOs only, does not provide this access to support and puts both staff and the public at increased risk. If Unison agrees that PSOs at court are able to propose sentence on all but the most serious offences, it is only a short step to PSOs being asked to write reports across the organisation. This will lead to increased risks across NPS as well as vast swathes of Probation Officers being made redundant.”

“Most staff are multi skilled anyway but I do not think that generic workers enhance quality of service. There is the risk of losing touch with current changes in practice when people are taken out of specialist posts. There are very specific skill sets required for VLO work and facilitating group work and failing to train people properly could result in poor practice and increase risk of harm to victims or increase risk of re-offending for RSO's.”

“It is my belief that we should work within an environment that recognises staff for the quality and time they deliver, especially within the NPS as we work with a diversity of service users. We should be paid and protected within our roles, this includes our terms and conditions, because the work we provide in protecting the public is crucial and reducing the risk posed within the community is a specialist role. This cannot be measured due to the demand or statistics required by government.”

“E3 seems to be another major upheaval and I have not had time to read all documents and the implications.”

“If it's not broken it doesn't need fixing.”

“Splitting probation was the worst idea this government has created, and the seeds they have planted are now beginning to germinate. The whole of what is left of NPS has been left in total chaos and yet we aren't recognised for the work we do. The demands are unreal, without any regard for health and safety of staff who are working above and beyond their contracted hours to meet demands. We do not gain anything for exhausting ourselves and are constantly being downtrodden through different means, e.g. capability, stress, unsocial hours, frozen pay and inappropriate IT equipment and are still being undervalued for the work we do.”

“I work within NPS and am witnessing some of the changes already being implemented. I think staff who have a wealth of knowledge and experience in a certain area should be kept within their own work area in order to maximise the "reducing offender bad behaviour" as moving staff around within the organisation will only dilute that experience and knowledge.”

“The strong threat of imposed increased mobility, whilst at the same time increasing responsibility levels, but without appropriate recognition or recompense, is both threatening and offensive. For many staff, the ability and motivation to carry out an increasingly complicated job with increased bureaucracy, then being made untenable by being required to do this job across more than one site, with increased travel = less time for personal life and family, is simply not tenable. As has been seen with mileage allowances, the NPS simply ignores the unions, and imposes whatsoever it wishes to, on a workforce who have not asked to descend into the dark ages in relation to their T&Cs, their H&S and overall the way they are viewed and treated.”

“Having a divisional hub will have a great impact on my life. I have commitments at home and am unable to add travel distance on to my working day. I feel that if I get offered a job and it is for example in..................., I will technically have to make myself redundant as I would be unable to accept the offer of employment.”

“On the whole I feel the E3 Blueprint is a positive move forward for Probation which does require a resilient workforce and the ability for staff to progress into areas of interest with an expectation that they will experience different areas of the business...”

“E3 has proposed some new corporate positions which were taken away by the CRC at the point of the split i.e. local finance management, which I think is positive. However, we need to be careful that these positions are not used as a 'dumping ground' in Divisions where there just isn't someone to do that role (e.g. estates) and someone is asked to undertake this work whilst having to maintain their day job.”

“Specialist roles are detrimental to other staff who are unable to break the hold that these staff have on management not to move them. These include staff facilitating sex offender programmes and those in resettlement teams and victims units.”