Napo very clear about our objectives on job evaluation
A 30 minute break from what is as I expected, a testing but extremely thorough E3 Job Evaluation meeting with senior NOMS management, gives me an opportunity to bury any notion that Napo has entered the appeal mechanism having already decided what the results of the job evaluation panels (that I wrote about last week) are going to be.
I rarely respond to idle gossip or rumours, but if anyone can let me have the source of the statement being peddled in some quarters as official Napo policy, that this union is not trying its best to achieve an increase in banding for the Victim Liaison Officer, then I will be pleased to investigate.
Better still let’s all save some time; and allow me to repeat what I have made clear at just about every branch AGM I have attended in recent weeks, which is that Napo's leadership group believes that the VLO banding should be set at 4. That is why I have devoted considerable internal resource into our efforts, and have helped persuade NOMS to take our issues seriously, and with the help of Katie Lomas, Chris Winters and Yvonne Pattison, have found a number of expert practitioners who have provided superb input in helping us challenge the original outcomes.
We now enter the next stage of an agreed process as part of the NNC Job Evaluation scheme where trained job evaluation panelists – which include Napo nominees who know about the jobs – will look at the revised job descriptions and job design questionnaires that we have tried to make as reflective as possible of the valuable work undertaken by our VLO Members.
We will adopt exactly the same approach for all of the other appeals that we are going through in an attempt to secure the best possible outcomes for members.
HM Inspectorate pulls no punches
Dame Glenys Stacey has certainly set out her intentions in the way in which the probation inspectorate intend to go about their work, with another highly impressive report into the provision of probation services in the Durham area.
We will be going through this to pull out the key issues that we will want to bring to the attention of the new Secretary of State as well as Michael Spurr following our recent meeting. Among other things, the report raises some interesting issues about 'on the day' court reports that tally with much of our E3 feedback.
We have already approached NOMS with our view that under E3, the court report allocation system requires reports to be allocated to either a PSO or PO based on the level of risk. But given that the level of risk is determined at the end of the report, it’s a fair question as to how the reports will be allocated on this basis if this is not determined at that point? We, and you, are concerned that reports will either be completed by staff not properly trained to do them, or that there will be lots of duplicated work, where for example a PSO starts the report process (interview etc) then realises it's not a PSO appropriate report and has to hand it over to a PO who will have to start from the beginning. This is time consuming for staff but pretty awful for clients at a critical point in the judicial process.
Practitioners will be well aware of how the Information available at court is often mixed; it can take weeks to get what is needed from police and social services and information on the availability of interventions from CRCs isn't always up to scratch either.
There is a new drive from NOMS to prepare the report where the client is sentenced even if they live in a different area. This also means that a report writer in Leeds may be completing a report for a client who lives in London and it's not easy to find out how to get information from police, social services and the local CRC to where the client's order will be managed. In the past these reports would be adjourned for a local report writer to complete.
This situation needs urgent attention from NOMS, who will not be able to say that Napo failed to bring it to their attention.
Public Service Prisons Operating Model - early responses from members
Following my invitation for direct feedback last week, it’s clear that there is disquiet amongst some members about the proposals, especially in light of the E3 1:1 meetings taking place at the moment. Until now there has been a lack of engagement with the unions on this keynote proposal which has a huge potential impact on our members for many reasons. My appreciation to those readers who have taken the time and trouble to let me have your views. Here is a snapshot summary of some of what you are saying about the prospect of more NPS staff working in prisons:
- Prisons are generally less accessible; therefore there are fears that there is a possibility of members being managed out due to disability.
- Working hours are more restrictive in prisons, making it an unsuitable option for many staff due to work life balance issues.
- The environment is a very different one and any transition should necessarily be managed carefully and be for a fixed term.
- Some LDU clusters have no prisons, some have several, and so moving the custody work means moving staff which in turn means a huge upheaval of staff from those areas with no prisons.
- Some members may struggle with the vetting requirements for prisons.
- There is a lot of uncertainty about the practicalities of prisoners moving multiple times during their sentences. This is likely to cause workload issues for members.
There are many questions about the minutiae of the proposals that we will be putting to NOMS during the engagement process.
Plenty to think about on this, and the myriad issues that we are pushing on behalf of members across the 24 employers we now deal with.
--oo00oo--
This from the previous week's blog:-
Job evaluation - whats happening next?
We are due to engage with senior NOMS management about the next stage in the agreed process for reviewing those posts that formed part of the E3 job evaluation exercise including VLOs, AP Managers and AP Residential Workers. This follows the agreement we reached with the employers to have a collective review of the job evaluation outcomes to avoid massive amounts of duplicated work from individual appeals.
At the E3 trade union engagement meeting this week it was agreed that following a review of all the information provided by both sides, a meeting will be held prior to new panels being convened who will re-evaluate these job roles. Napo have insisted that the new panels must contain trade union representatives with the appropriate level of understanding of the specific roles being reviewed; and whilst we cannot hand pick our choices (as the system does not work that way) I am confident that those being asked to serve on the new panels will approach their difficult task with the professional knowledge and integrity that we would all expect from them. What is also important to note, is that we have insisted that the JE panellists and our expert practitioner advisers to Napo and Unison, receive a comprehensive pre-briefing from NOMS specialists about the outcomes from the proposed job roles and associated design questionnaires that Napo members actually undertaking the work have made an important contribution to.
Once we have agreed the final timescale for completion of the process we will let members know, but current expectations are that new JE Panels will be convened around mid-August.
Everyone in the leadership group here understands that this is an anxious time for many members, and all I can say at this stage is that we have done all that we can within the rules of the scheme to ensure that your interests are going to be given full consideration.
have found a number of expert practitioners who have provided superb input in helping us challenge the original outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThat is good news for VLOs no doubt but why has the claim last week that
Napo have insisted that the new panels must contain trade union representatives with the appropriate level of understanding of the specific roles being reviewed; and whilst we cannot hand pick our choices (as the system does not work that way)
This is just not credible the panel are supposed to be an agreed process and the management choose their side and Napo choose its own best skilled people. This looks a fire fight and what next ?
I think the general secretary contradicts himself. He says in one breath that he wants to kill the rumour that Napo has entered the appeals process having already decided what the outcome will be, but then says all the Napo leadership team the VLO role should be in band 4.
ReplyDeleteWhy it should be a band 4 is beyond me as I don't see the VLO role as equivalent in job demands as the PO role or the PSO role. There is nothing inherently more onerous working with victims than with other groups in probation. Given that the Napo leadership have such a settled view on the appropriate banding for VLOs, I wonder what bandings they think would be appropriate for the PO and PSO roles.
Napo is wrong to state a VLO role should be band 4, that is unless it is also stating that PO role should be band 5 or 6.
ReplyDeleteThe VLO is a band 3 role and it is questionable whether the role should be paid the same as a PSO (band 3) and more than a Case Admin (band 2). It is nowhere near as equivalent in job demands as the PO role or the PSO role. Victim work does not entail the responsibility for decisions, planning, supervision, risk assessment, report writing and rehabilitation that Probation Officer's are required do.
Role boundaries should be implemented for the new PSO role. Agreed.
ReplyDeleteCourt reports should not be written 'on the day'. - Agreed
Court reports with complex risk issues, if not all Court reports, should be written by Probation Officers rather than PSO's. - Agreed
So we are agreed that the Probation Officer role (paid at band 4) is a complex role with specific responsibilities. More complex than a VLO role which is a PSO-lite role at best. How the hell can 'Napo's leadership group' then say it believes that the VLO banding should be set at 4?
For anyone interested, Victim Support is advertising VLO type vacancies for £20,000 per annum.
https://www.victimsupport.org.uk/more-us/jobs/current-vacancies/london/victim-contact-officer-x-3-london
I've had a quick look at the Victim Support advert. It's not equivalent to a VLO role, they are actually recruiting call centre staff working as a Victim Care Officer, basically conducting a needs assessment over the phone & referring victims onto other agencies. The VLO role involves visiting victims in their own home, explaining complex sentences to people who may have had no experience of the CJS prior to their loved one being murdered, or them being raped, or stalked, harassed and assaulted by a partner they dates for only a few weeks. VLO's are required to risk assess & will implement protection measures & referrals to MAPPA & MARAC. They are faced with people whose life has been turned upside down, are traumatised, scarred for life & on occasion, ostracised by their family, particularly in cases of familial sexual abuse. They can be confused, angry & terrified & a VLO has to find a way to engage with them, explain a sentence so they understand & inform them of sentence developments, such as release or transfer to open. Developments that they know are going to cause anguish, distress, anger and real terror for victims. VLO's are the public face of the Probation Service. Meeting victims & their families in their home & trying to explain the important role of Probation & reassure them of the expertise of Probation, prison staff & the Parole Board in risk assessing offenders & of the excellent work that Offender Managers do. They do that work with little thanks or support, because they believe it is worthwhile. Please support them at this difficult time, not denigrate them.
DeleteI won't be forced to agree a VLO does the same as a Probation Officer because they do not and everybody knows this. Many VLO's have never even trained as Probation Officers and should not be paid the same. I think we have to be honest about what the VLO role is. I would never call them the "public face of probation", that's a new one! The role may be emotionally draining but it is certainly not complex nor the same as frontline probation roles. Explaining sentences, completing home visits and passing on victim views is not complex work. It's quite easy when sentences and release dates are easily accessible and developments are relayed from probation officers as a mandatory action. I've rarely known VLO's to complete Mappa and Marac referrals. These are usually completed by probation officers. Risk assessments are also completed by probation officers too, as is the sentencing reports, the post sentence reports and nearly everything else.
DeleteAnother foolish divider looking at your own job. Look at the VLO role in light of the Job evaluation requirements not your subjective burbling.
DeleteReally? On this basis Probation Officers should be paid more. PO's do a lot 'explaining sentences', 'home visits', work with 'angry and upset' people, and have contact with victims and families.
DeleteHaving worked with VLOs as a PO and SPO I can fully understand why they should be a Band 4. They contact qualifying victims within 8 weeks of sentence. They are often faced with individuals who can be left angry and confused by the sentences passed by the Courts. They visit victims who are experiencing grief, anger, hopelessness and a whole myriad of emotions, taking time to listen, listen and listen some more. Watching my VLO colleagues having to contact victims about key developments requires considerable skill. I have witnessed occasions where the VLO has had to inform victims of release months after the event, only finding out by chance due to a recall. Similarly, picking up the phone to advise terrified victims of a release takes diplomacy and courage. I watched my VLO colleagues working weekends and late evenings to meet the needs of victims. I've seen them support victims through VPS and attendance at oral hearings. In each case there had been superb risk assessment and high quality report writing for hearings. We have a truly dedicated team within my area. Having worked in probation for 20 years I had lots of contact with VLOs due to holding throughcare cases. However, it was only through a period of working alongside them in a different role that enabled me to begin to understand the remarkably complex and difficult role they have.
ReplyDeleteWell the rest of us are not paid danger money, remuneration for emotional stress or overtime. This view that the role is complex is not true, and I've work in probation for many years. Because there are those that exaggerate what the role actually is, is what is losing the VLO role it's band 4 status.
DeleteRubbish ! POs are overpaid for what they do really when you look at these days. PSOs are doing reports in a day no training and getting on well not complaining. No drop in standards or service to the public. Courts being cleared of Pos in NPS no loss noticed. Cheaper PSO filling the gaps no training required so in terms of exaggeration I think the Pos have been doing a great job of that up to now. Soon the game will be up. Low pay to all then you will be happy ?
DeleteI fully endorse the last 2 comments, 21 06 and 22 03,clearly describing the role of a Victim Liaison Officer and I question how much 20 04 knows about this role. Years ago, I was a student working in the same team as a PO in community supervision, before she moved on to throughcare (before the change of name to resettlement). She later moved into the VLU as a VLO, where I saw her becoming more and more stressed and eventually had a mental breakdown, due to the stress of working with victims, whose lives were often shattered, who lived in constant fear, who suffered ill health, whose families had broken down, whose children had nightmares, who poured out their fears and questions to her, constantly seeking reassurance. This PO said she would go home with vivid pictures in her mind of what the victims suffered, and felt a failure that she couldn't make the future safe for them.
DeleteLike the above PO I had lots of contact with her and later VLOs in my throughcare role and always had much respect for them. Following her breakdown she took on a part time team manager before becoming my full time team manager. When a vacancy came up, it was suggested to me that I was suitable for it and to apply. But this woman advised me not to apply and told me that the VLO role was by far the most complex and stressful of any of her Probation posts, and that as team POs we never really got to see exactly how much our cases damaged the lives of their victims, with no assurance that it will not happen again.
That is why in my efforts to publicise the worsening mess of TR at every opportunity, I always ensure that I include the raised impact of this botched sick joke on victims.
Fabulous accurately enlightening post.
DeleteAgree well put ML respect to you !
DeleteI find all of this very concerning I have been out with VLOs to observe and it doesn't compare to the responsibilities of OMs both PO and PSO grade I agree it is a sensitive role but should be carried out objectively and not unwittingly perpetuate victimisation.
DeleteA stressful role does not mean it pays more. I doubt any of you understand job evaluation and banding. I know probation officers that have seconded into the role in the past. All said it was draining and most moved on as quickly as possible. Likewise more said the role was not complex and was effectively a PSO role. I've had much contact with the role and I agree. - Band 3
DeleteNonsense your contact is not objective evaluation. You decide on nothing concrete.
DeleteAwfully poor attitudes towards understanding pay value for the VLO role. All the above bar 2. It is naïve and foolish. You all need to look away from role comparison. POs do not do the same job. One is offender rehabilitation focused and the VLO is 180 degrees the other direction.
ReplyDeleteJob evaluation does just that, it breaks down the job and looks at the levels of knowledge required in role and in its component parts. Allocating grading's within the range of task and duties. Valuing all the demands and skills. To try and reduce any probation staff pay is a weak and foolish start because E3 will rip through your grades in the despicable way later and faster if they get away with this conspiracy now.
There is nothing wrong with GS making a commitment to Band 4 but why not 5 ? Until a genuine competent and well structured JE process has occurred that all sides have a debrief can there be some consensus on pay values. Pos do a sort of job that has a range of tested skill sets and so do many other non PO staff from different discipline in their roles. Rated differently no doubt in the two organisations. Now get real being a PO at grade 4 is not the only employee in town. What others get paid is no concern of yours if your happy at your rate then support others to theirs . Unless the above posters are managers stirring this agenda they can get lost.
Clearly this is the only sensible post and written by somebody who knows the job. P.Os are so divisive and consumed with fragile hierarchy and know that E3 will remove the title Probation Officer which means nothing outside of this work. It is not a profession akin to Doctors, Dentists or Solicitors, groups who probably respect and support each other when fighting for decent pay and conditions. The Critical P.Os on this blog have moved along way from the original Welfare service ethos our Service was built on sadly. Is it any wonder we have been privatised with this type of prejudice thriving between colleagues
ReplyDeleteI've never known a PO to be "divisive and consumed with fragile hierarchy". It may well be that E3 will remove the title Probation Officer, a job that is in fact well known outside of this work. This has no bearing on the topic at hand, nor does it have any bearing on the point that an organisation should not be paying the same salary to those doing different levels of work.
DeleteYou need to take a walk in an OM role PO or PSO then you might have s better idea of the skills required I'm not suggesting it's just probation staff that can do this work but it definitely requires a high level of specialist skills to have any success
Delete22:40 if you look at the criteria for the VLO it does not fall squarely into band 4. There are roles other than the PO that are band 4 in probation but the VLO role is not one. It does fall squarely into band 3 which is why historically VLO posts have been largely filled by PSO's. It is a very different job from a PO as you point out, but it does not meet the same level of scoring for band 4 pay. If a Senior Probation Officer decides to take a job as an administrator then they should be paid accordingly. I think it is right to look at roles that are paid too little or too less, but if the GS wants to look good by saying a role should be paid more than it should then do it for all roles not just VLO's.
ReplyDeleteYou clearly do not have a real clue on what JE means to claim where a role fits like this makes that crystal. The GS can say what he likes as long as he talks up terms and conditions for his members he is doing his job. You ought to read up more and post less.
DeleteThe service has been sold down the pan. All roles are being devalued. The GS has NEVER done his job.
DeleteWhen we argue amongst ourselves and make statements such as that group do not deserve that money, we do ourselves down.
ReplyDeleteIt is not for one worker to drag down another worker. If you are not happy with your pay, band-together and demand more, maybe even use the fact the the other worker is now being paid at X rate and therefore you deserve more.
If workers continue to lower the bar we will all end up working for nothing.
Good on the VLO's, they have stood up to be counted. They are explaining their case to the pay masters and demanding they be respected.
What did you do? What did the glorious PO's do when there work was being farmed off to lower paid PSO's? Did you fight or just roll over?
What did you do to protect the PSO's from job creep? From being taken advantage of by having smoke blown up their arse, and encouraged to take on more task. Did you draw a line in the sand and demand that the PSO's be protected and not take on those tasks until properly trained and compensated?
No is the answer. And now, where are these oh so high and mighty PO's? Working in a role that was defined in the 2007 Offender Management Act as a role that could be done by anyone (and there is another battle that Probation staff failed to engage in).
We've been fucked by everybody and yet the only people we show our nasty side to is our colleagues!!! Those NOMS knobheads must be pissing themselves.
When PSO's (probation assistants) were brought in to take over PO work it was the late 1980's and a lot of today's PO's were not yet born. Most PO's were against this but at least the role boundaries were clear until eroded under Probation Trusts which laid the foundation for TR. That's something for you to think about.
DeleteRole boundaries were clear until PO's allowed them to become muddied. True story.
DeleteAs I remember it we didn't have a choice in the matter. From the TPO training onwards Managers became relentless in increasing the role of PSO's who didn't have much say in the matter either.
Deleteand at that point you should have become active in NAPO and ensured that the voice of the PO and the PSO was heard above that of the manager.
DeleteWe were all active in Napo then!
DeleteI understand the GS standing up for the VLO role. The risk is if one role is reduced then they all will be. The problem is that the VLO role does not hold the level of responsibility, complexity and training as other band 4 roles. Under Trusts it was a band 3 role when filled by PSO's, except when PO's were seconded at their existing band 4. There are other battles around banding, job evaluation and role boundaries that can be won, but I don't think this is one except for maybe keeping existing PO VLO's at band 4.
ReplyDeletePlain wrong vlos have unique role read the charter. Pos other staff are worth more than many of you face reality .
DeleteI disagree. Not to take anything away from the VLO but Probation officers work with victims and their families too. In a lot of cases there is no statutory Victim Liason contact and we do have contact with partners, parents, siblings and children affected by the offences of those we supervise. Jack of all trades we are!
Delete00 33 - yes of course we have had contact with victims, and their family, and social workers, and police, but not to the same depth as VLOs had,(certainly as it was years ago), but it must be very difficult now to keep that level of work going. I once had a thank you card and a box of chocs left for me in reception, from the ex-partner of my case, at the end of his Order. All this woman (the victim)said in the card was 'thanks for listening', but they were worth a million words and I still have the card, from nearly 20 yrs ago. I have another thank you card from the grateful parents of another case (who were his terrified victims). On the other hand, I once rang a victim when I was preparing a PSR on a DV case, to get her side of a complicated story, and I got my wrist slapped by my manager! I still kept her comment in the report!
DeleteIve done this in reports a few times too, usually when the victim contacted me. In contact with a few victims on current caseload. It's unavoidable, not had my wrists slapped yet but probably will now I've said that!!
Delete00:33 yes you are jack of all trades as PO and master of none ! The VLOS are masters of their work only their work do a better job and usually don't cry about it when it goes wrong. We don't claim to be experts at everything crime through the door or that we are the only people for the job or the only ones trained in everything so we have any given lord it up rights we just do a good job at a higher level than that a 3 grade simple .
Delete