Focus on RRP

Experience shows that some CRCs get talked about on here more than others and we don't hear that much from RRP and the two companies it runs namely SWM and DNLR. So it's with considerable interest that I note the following recent contributions:- 

Anonymous 26 October 2017 at 21:35

And this today from SWM NAPO Branch...are RRP trying to screw us over?

Members may be aware that RRP commenced consultation, in July 2017, with the recognised Trade Unions on harmonising a number of policies across SWM and DNLR including the redundancy policy.

Napo and senior management agreed a timeline for completion of this by the end of September 2017, following the termination of the uplift element by RPP of the redundancy policy for SWM members.

Napo entered into the consultation in good faith following reassurances for our members, from senior management, that there would be no imminent redundancies. Napo fully expected to conclude the consultation by the end of September, however for a variety of reasons the process was delayed.

As of yesterday, 25th of October, 2017, it became apparent that the RRP Board were not prepared to compromise and properly negotiate a satisfactory conclusion for all. Napo believe that the redundancy package on offer is derisory and not reflective of the significant impact of organisational change and the hard work and commitment staff have provided.

Napo consider that we have been placed in such a position that we are not able to, in good conscious, accept the proposed policy.  Napo will be consulting with members with the aim of making a decision in relation to the next course of action to be taken. Further communications will follow.

Kind regards
Ralph Coldrick, NAPO SWM Branch Chair
Debra Williams and Andrew Preston, Napo SWM vice chairs.

--oo00oo--

Anonymous 31 October 2017 at 21:35

More from SWM NAPO Branch on the current lack of progress in protecting terms and conditions of it's CRC members. There is also suspicion that further redundancies are imminent.

You will have had sight of the emails from Napo and RRP regarding the recent redundancy policy negotiations. It is felt by Napo that we now need to put some 'meat on the bones' to our previous correspondence concerning this matter.

Friday 20th October

Both Unison and Napo representatives from SWM and DLNR were invited to a meeting by RRP management to discuss the harmonisation of the redundancy policy. At this meeting Napo were informed that RRP were prepared to offer an uplift of 1.2 to the minimum statutory redundancy payment. This was the initial offer which Napo had queried at the start of the consultation and had been advised by RRP that there was scope for negotiation and discussion.

It’s important to note that members of staff in SWMCRC who had previously been made redundant in 2016 had an uplift of 3.46 above statutory redundancy. Napo are also aware that Nottinghamshire’s policy currently has a 1.3 uplift.

After discussion. the Unions rejected the 1.2 offer and put forward a counter proposal of 2.4. This was rejected by RRP who said they could not afford such an uplift.

After further discussion and some argument, RRP increased their offer to an uplift of 1.3. This derisory offer was unanimously rejected by both Unions. Further discussion ensued between the unions, in an attempt to get agreement, it was proposed that if RRP agreed a 1.8 uplift, in principle the Unions could accept this. Once again RRP rejected this offer.

Wednesday 25th October

This meeting began by RRP once again saying they were unable to increase their offer from 1.3.

In a final attempt to 'unblock' the negotiations the Unions agreed and put forward a proposal for a 1.5 uplift. This was felt by both Unions to be a reasonable compromise. I am sorry to tell you that once again RPP rejected our offer.

At the initial meeting it was made clear to the Unions that the RRP Board were prepared to uplift the statutory redundancy policy to 1.3 and this uplift was in their gift, therefore could take place with or without the agreement of the Unions. However at the second meeting RRP did an about turn and stated that the gift of 1.3 uplift was being withdrawn. This decision came as a shock to the Unions, who at that time felt that they were being held to ransom rather than a negotiation. We made further representations on behalf of our members in an attempt to persuade RRP to agree to the their initial offer of an uplift of 1.3.

The Unions are sorry to have to inform you that RRP have so far refused to commit to this and this decision remains with the RRP Board.

Napo have to point out that during negotiations that the Unions had been told by management that the Board said that there should be no uplift at all. This is a totally unacceptable way to approach negotiations. Napo are of the opinion that if RRP refuse to honour their initial offer they have undermined their own stated value base by acting with such a lack of integrity, this decision is nothing short of shameful and demonstrates a contemptable attitude to their loyal and hardworking staff.

In previous discussions the Unions have been told by the RRP that they want to be seen as good employers. I am afraid that at this moment that this does not ring true.

--oo00oo--

There was an Inspection report earlier this year and it was covered on Friday, 13 January 2017:-

Inspector Finds Problems with RRP

Here we have the latest inspection report from the Probation Inspectorate:-

Foreword

This is our second inspection of adult probation work undertaken in the Midlands division of the National Probation Service (NPS) and in a Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) owned by the Reducing Reoffending Partnership (RRP).

RRP is applying the same ambitious operating model in the two CRCs it owns, and it is reassuring to see the progress made since our inspection in Derbyshire just a few months ago. Implementation in Staffordshire and Stoke is almost complete - albeit case management software and systems are still pending - and the operating model is now almost fully fledged.

RRP’s model provides for an extensive range of interventions and it was pleasing to see some in good use, for example, substance misuse services. We were impressed as well by RRP’s commitment to specific services for women, and commend its strategy to others.

That said, the CRC is not yet delivering the full range of planned services. Delivery has been inconsistent during a period of rapid change, but there is the prospect of steadier times ahead. Individual caseloads, however, look set to stay high with some officers now responsible for up to 80 cases.

High individual caseloads are becoming commonplace in CRCs. Of course CRCs must manage within anticipated resource, but the public is at greater risk when officers are spread too thinly and if quality assurance is not robust.

In common with other regions, the Midlands division of the NPS has so far experienced less (and less complex) change. It was not surprising then that the organisation was more stable and effective. This is generally consistent with what we have found elsewhere.

Overall, the NPS work inspected was of sufficient quality but there were notable weaknesses in places, for example in the provision of rehabilitative services. There was little evidence of the NPS purchasing services from the CRC to assist here, whereas CRC provision of services to the NPS is a key tenet of the model for probation services nationally. In practice and despite leaders’ intentions, the rate card (listing services available) and/or concerns over pricing remain sticking points, here and elsewhere in the country.

Both the CRC and NPS in Staffordshire and Stoke need to improve the quality and impact of their work. We hope that the findings and recommendations from this inspection will help them to do just that.

HM Chief Inspector of Probation January 2017

--oo00oo--

Russell Webster has summarised the report here and the following is a taster. 

The main inspectors’ findings of the work of the CRC were:

• Assessments of risk of harm were done consistently and to an acceptable standard, thereby providing a good grounding for future work, but those assessments were not followed through sufficiently well.
• In almost half of the cases insufficient steps had been taken to keep to a minimum the service user’s risk of harm to others. Moreover, in a high proportion of cases, sentence planning was poor.
• There was no evidence of the CRC seeking to quality assure public protection work. Management oversight was limited.
• The CRC was not sufficiently effective in delivering interventions to reduce reoffending.
• In most cases, the CRC produced an assessment and plan sufficient for the purposes of reducing reoffending. There was evidence of some effective work but this was offset by adverse consequences of organisational change, particularly disruption to the continuity of supervision due to frequent changes of responsible officer.
• Members of staff were confused about their roles, and the availability of appropriate interventions.
• The use of ‘step down’, where contact is reduced or managed by telephone calls, was not compatible with the risks associated with cases, nor did it support rehabilitative work.
• Most CRC service users had abided by the conditions of their sentence. If they did not, appropriate enforcement action was taken.
• Individual diversity was taken into account in the assessment, planning and delivery arrangements in almost all cases.
• The high turnover of responsible officers was less of a problem in this area of work, but in almost one in four cases the lack of continuity led to unacceptable levels of contact and poor enforcement work.

--oo00oo--

The post generated this comment:-

I work in the area and the poor change management, leadership and we have caseloads which continue to increase. What's worse is that the Derby inspection warned RRP of the same issues and management carried on regardless! SFOs are at a high level, staff are stressed! They made 10+ POs redundant and have got rid of all our local admin! RRP should be held to account and to say management breathed a sigh of relief when this was published would be an understatement! It could have been and should have been so much worse! Staff continue to do the important work but can't manage with caseloads of now 90+!!!!

--oo00oo--

A reminder who RRP are:-

Transforming Rehabilitation is the government's programme of reform for the management of offenders in the community; the primary aim of which is to achieve a reduction in reoffending.

The Reducing Reoffending Partnership is a groundbreaking new partnership between St Giles Trust, Ingeus and CGL, working together with Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland and Staffordshire & West Midlands Community Rehabilitation Companies.

The issues driving people into a destructive cycle of prison, disadvantage and reoffending are highly complex and we know we cannot tackle these problems on our own. We are committed to working in partnership with local providers who have a wealth of expertise and insight. We will also be building upon the excellent work of the probation service.

Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland CRC

Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire & Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) supervise around 6,800 offenders, who have been assessed as being low and medium risk of harm cases. The CRC provides public protection services to more than three million people within communities across the four counties of the East Midlands region.

Staffordshire & West Midlands CRC

Staffordshire & West Midlands Community Rehabilitation Company provides probation services for around 13,000 low and medium risk offenders across Staffordshire and the West Midlands. Probation experts work with offenders on different programmes such as Community Payback. Last year, for example, over 454,940 hours of Community Payback were completed across the region by 3,400 offenders.

St Giles Trust

St Giles Trust is a leading criminal justice charity helping ex-offenders to successfully rehabilitate. Its peer-led approach trains reformed ex-offenders to offer services and support for others looking to change their lives. Set up in 1962, it supports 15,000 people each year, is a leading employer of ex-offenders and has been included in The Sunday Times Best 100 Companies to Work For ranking for the past seven years.

CGL

CGL is one of the largest substance misuse providers in the UK, helping 64,000 people a day who are affected by drugs, alcohol, crime, homelessness, domestic abuse and antisocial behaviour. CGL develop and deliver a suite of strengths-based recovery programmes and have extensive experience of delivering rehabilitation services that reduce offending. Projects are delivered in communities and prisons, encouraging and empowering people to regain control of their lives and motivate them to tackle their problems.

Find out more
Please visit the Reducing Reoffending Partnership website for more information.