ViSOR Special

It's quite clear that all is far from well in NPS and the vexed issue of vetting and ViSOR is rapidly becoming the catalyst that highlights why probation should never be part of HMPPS and the civil service command and control ethos. We've covered it several times before and the subject formed a large part of yesterday's blog by Ian Lawrence, no doubt because Napo is getting quite a lot of grief from the membership. 

The latest Napo briefing document published two weeks ago can be found here and there's been much discussion on Facebook:-

Does anyone have a view, advice re latest visor business ie let the police investigate your life before you get permission to access visor!!!!! Form includes asking for details re your lifestyle, personal details, financial circumstances (do you have debt and susceptibility to bribes), details of your partner, family members and children umm don’t think I’ve forgotten anything oh yes all information will be treated confidentially now sign and you have 14 days to complete it!

It sounds like you might need government Secure Clearance level to access it now - I’m secure cleared and that sounds like the sort of thing I was asked. Have you been turned down for credit in the past 7 years was one of the questions on my form and I was like “I can’t remember what I was doing last week let alone 7 years ago...”

The form is very similar to the one I filled in for a job with them, but my form was for a CTC level check. It's interesting that they put microscopes in places you never know you possessed!

From the submission by Napo Cymru to the Wales Justice Commission: (the whole thing is online here.

"With developing work, particularly in MAPPA and Prolific Offenders (IOM: Integrated Offender Management) there is increasing risk of Probation’s identity and role being subsumed and diluted. There is high concern amongst Probation practitioners regarding the vetting processes required for Probation Staff to be given access to the Police Visor database. This process is opaque - the criteria, who makes the judgement regarding acceptability, whether the information disclosed is stored, the existence of an appeals process are unknowns. It is likely to further exclude those with “lived experience” of crime and the CJS from probation practice, whose contribution can be significant – and lead towards an homogeneity of the workforce"

Yes I questioned it and was basically told we have no choice. I’ve done it but not happy about it. The Napo advice was useful.

Scream it. Probation has its own identity and values, and its leaders need to have the confidence and commitment to champion that. The Visor vetting is deeply dubious, and questionable both ethically and legally, in my view. Our top brass need to put the foot down, say it is not in the interests or ethic of our organisation to oblige its staff to submit to this, and at a bottom line, agree to a very limited number of VOLUNTEER staff to jump through these dodgy hoops.

I know. We have had the stuffing knocked out of us, TR was properly traumatic, financially and emotionally. Good people have gone. We were advised to "get over it" but injustice is a thing that burns. And finding the energy (even the troopers) for more is a big ask. I am searching my soul.

Totally agree! One of my colleagues was asked by her manager “what have you got to hide?” leaving my colleague feeling embarrassed, intimidated and angry! I feel there will be little to no support from management and that saddens me though doesn’t shock me..which is even more sad!

"If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" is the standard trope of the totalitarian. Very very creepy.

It’s the intrusiveness, the insinuation that if you’re in debt you are susceptible to bribes, the nosing into your family...who may have done something wrong...that you don’t know about, the putting of staff against staff again, the suspicion!!! It stinks!!!

God I am so glad I am out. This sounds like the Stasi. 1984 here we come.

Do people not need to give consent to their details being disclosed? If I'm being forced to disclose other people's information without their consent as I don't actually know what or where else the info is going or to be used for, could I be breaching some sort of privacy regulations?

If you or your close ones refuse to give consent from what I have read they will do it anyway!! So I guess they are asking for consent out of.....courtesy??? 

I'm a PO that will 100% fail vetting due to having a past conviction 40 years ago. I know others that have failed because of past convictions of self and family, previous dismissal from employment, bad credit and CCJ’s. I also know one person who failed and was not told why. Rightly Napo are finally addressing this. PO’s do not need to use Visor, it’s a system we’ve never needed. How are the police getting away with forcing us to use their system and then dictating who is eligible!

Imagine if Probation demanded all PC’s and DiCk’s must use NDelius and any that had ever had a disciplinary, a student loan or were ever on benefits can no longer work on the frontline! To use this useless system means submitting my life history via an admin (who will tell everyone) to be vetted and failed by local police. No thanks!

On failing vetting I’ll be sent to work in Courts, and EVERYONE will know why. There’ll never be a chance of promotion or role change. Very unfair! If I refuse to fill in the form that’ll ruin my career I’m threatened with disciplinary. It’s not a “reasonable instruction”, it’s extremely unfair!

Don't fill in the form make them direct you but I doubt they will. The problem is they will oust you from role anyway claiming you did not fill it in. There is a post in Napo by the said perspective VC come national chair that was largely in agreement with the Vetting. All right for some then eh? The change in our work now determined by a further police check when we all know what they are about is just a deeper mire. Most staff know it will only ruin a few colleagues lives and they wont hold any solidarity for that. Nor will Napo.

I have 10k credit card debt. Am I likely to fail?

Maybe not if your credit rating is okay. Most people with have some debt. I think CCJ’s are a definite failure, and bad credit rating and associated debt a possible failure.

Yes it was Katie Lomas that told us that forcing Vetting on staff against their will, and shifting Vetting failures into alternative positions against their will, is acceptable. There are many staff really worried about Vetting and imagine how it must be for those that expect to fail it - the condemned waiting for an execution date. You’re right, there’ll be no solidarity as the majority of staff are of the “what have you got to hide” mentality. When it came up in our team meeting the manager told us how clean her background was and how she passed Vetting with flying colours. Not a care for others in the room that were very quiet, or the brave one that announced they expected to fail.

It’s not a “reasonable instruction” if there are no reasonable procedures in place to deal with vetting failure, including how the NPS will apply Vetting Plus exemptions or alternative adjustments to keep staff in post. I suspect there’s been more failures than expected already and NPS are struggling to keep staff at the mo. Napo could easily fight this and kick Vetting into the long grass.Reply

Probation has its own identity and values, and its leaders need to have the confidence and commitment to champion that. The Visor vetting is deeply dubious, and questionable both ethically and legally, in my view. Our top brass need to put the foot down, say it is not in the interests or ethic of our organisation to oblige its staff to submit to this, and at a bottom line, agree to a very limited number of VOLUNTEER staff to jump through these dodgy hoops.

I have commented on this previously, if VISOR is such a precious inner sanctum it seems daft to open it to thousands of supposedly clean slates. Create a passageway with guards and access protocols. If there is a reason that this is not a sensible option then please explain why.

Visor is an excuse. The real reason is Vetting brings us in line with prison staff who are Vetted. Then probation staff can easily be moved between probation and prisons.

Man down t’ pub says probation management should be completing a Vetting Plus form at point of Vetting application of every staff member expecting to fail. Vetting Plus allows those that’d normally fail get clearance, and is renewed on an annual basis. How else do you think ex-offenders go into prisons as mentors.

Probation managers can also override vetting failure with Director approval and allow them to remain in post.

I'd like to know how many have failed Vetting already, how many have been moved in to new roles and how many were dismissed or left after failing.

And how many cases did Napo take on, win and return staff to original posts?

The answer is zero because Katie Lomas & Co think moving staff to other roles is an acceptable solution. It is not.

I think there would grounds for Constructive Dismissal if an individual failed and was subsequently told they could not continue in the role. Would NAPO support them at an Employment Tribunal? I think not, given they have been complicit in the implementation of this new diktat. About [time] NAPO was replaced by a union that has it's members rights as it's priority. Where is our pay progression due in April? What will they take away this time as part of a pay deal that they probably won't honour next year, as in the case of the last pay reform?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Malicious gossip around vetting has led to shameful and serious levels of bullying (staff on staff) by individuals seeking to protect their own position and damage the reputations of others. Some very experienced staff have behaved appallingly.

"Divide & Rule" - one of the favourite bullying strategies of Spurr's Noms/HMPPS. Introduce divisive, discriminatory, so-called 'elitist' practices which enables management to scapegoat staff, and which encourages staff to develop cliques & alienate those who are deemed 'less than' in order to secure their own positions.

This should have been a blog post. There’s ongoing discussion on fb around this. The more it’s exposed the better. It’s not right that any probation colleague with years of experience should be moved to the court team or forced out of employment because of bad credit, a past conviction or dismissal, or the conviction of a partner or family member. Will Napo tell us the figures of how many have failed Vetting, how many moved to other posts against their will, how many NPS overrides have been applied, how many have Napo fought to keep in post? - Answers on a postcard to Katie Lomas and Ian Lawrence.

Do CRC staff get vetted ?

No. They just use the DBS system.

I think it was definitely Napo who wanted vetting in the NPS - I mean 100% must have been, because NPS imposed it so Napo must have wanted it. I'd also heard the moon is made of cheese. Wonder if Napo did that too.

Some of us were moved to CRC's nothing to do with vetting. Some NPS staff think they are better than CRC staff. If they can move a huge number of staff into the private sector they are not going to worry about moving staff who fail the vetting. The MoJ has walked all over us and continue to do so. We've been given poor advice from the start of this shambles. Here we go again with more shit and more money wasted.

How and why the police are now involved in deciding who is eligible for frontline probation work is beyond me. The NPS / HMPPS is using Visor vetting to bully and control. This is their little stick or power at the moment at last Napo is working to smack it’s hand and take it away.

“the only concession they are willing to make is to ensure that their communications to Divisional Leadership teams include the requirement to support staff who are suffering the intense distress and indignity of this process.”

This shows how bad the NPS really is, and that it doesn’t care about staff issues at all. No different from the hangman agreeing to use a clean rope.

Sounds like Probation has succumbed to the same fate as many once-effective public services (NHS, DSS/DWP, etc) i.e. they are self-soothing narcissists who are ignoring/failing their raison d'etre. This is the inevitability of the obsessive target-driven culture which has overshadowed, overwhelmed & stifled any indigenous culture of professional practice. Visor, E3, OMiC - none are necessary for effective probation practice but, hiding behind the kevlar shield of Risk Management, they allow hierarchical managerialist bullies to flex their departmental muscle, demonstrate power & control, show who's in charge. Yet in a bid to be regarded as 'ok' those same organisational opportunists try to claim ownership of the very culture & values they are erasing. I recall seeing a senior NPS person on social media saying she is "passionate about Probation values". The dissonance is writ large, but no-one is calling it out.

More importantly, none of this bullshit assists those who are made subject to supervision by Probation staff.

They could have given us more staffing, increased resources, better quality training, and housing, jobs and support for those on probation, but instead we get Visor and Vetting that helps who exactly???

I have Visor clearance but it is due for renewal next year. The process is opaque so; whilst I have been cleared with my and my extended family's "lived experience", as it is termed, fully disclosed, am I assured clearance on the re-check? A rhetorical question but as there have been no changes in my circumstances, the answer should be "yes". We will see.

NAPO should have started fighting this last year. Too little too late really. I have been under pressure with this since last year. Failed Visor and given the opportunity to appeal. Police provided details of my fail due to life experiences and they dug up all sorts of info about me. All very stressful and so intrusive as much of this happened 25 - 30 odd years ago and I have been in probation now for 15 years. The Police are now requesting more info and a response from me in relation to my past for an appeal. I have not taken this route yet. If I could get out of the service now I would. There is very little respect/support for staff in relation to this and a lot of pressure from senior management to comply with vetting. Why has there been so little opposition to this up to now? Allowing the police to play such a major part in who can work in probation? I am ashamed of the service I work for.

"Whilst it is essential to have enough staff to meet with the mandatory ViSOR requirements, it is important that you only train, and therefore obtain security clearance for, those staff who have agreed to the vetting process and are identified as having a need and a purpose in accessing the ViSOR database."

Why are they being allowed to deviate from this??

I penned a guest blog 'Whitewashing the Probation Service' on this in October 2017 and the situation has only worsened. C’mon Napo - pull your finger out!

Probation Instruction PI03/14 can be found here.

June 2015 - Mike McClelland briefing GLNapo

"6. Security Vetting

This is currently covered by Probation Instruction 3/14. At the Probation Consultative Forum (PCF) in April, Napo expressed its concerns about this PI. In places it is felt that it is difficult to follow and that it has not been satisfactorily transposed from the Prison Service policy upon which it was based. It was not the subject of full consultation with the unions prior to publication. At the PCF, it was agreed that (retrospective) consultation would be sought with a view to improving the quality of the PI. We await an invitation to consult."

May 2016 - E3 Implementation Agreement

1. This document sets out the terms of a proposal for an agreement between the NPS and its recognised Trade Unions as to how the operational changes resulting from the E3 Programme will be implemented.

2. The Agreement is based on four principles that underpin our approach to implementation:

a. Openness and Transparency. NPS will share with staff the information they need to make informed choices.
b. Fairness. NPS will ensure that all staff are treated fairly.
c. Equality. NPS is committed to ensuring that the implementation of E3 complies with the highest standards in relation to equality considerations.
d. Minimise disruption – NPS will balance the need to minimise the disruption to staff with the need to minimise disruption to the provision of probation services. NPS will make every effort to minimise the impact on staff and where reasonable take into account personal circumstances, in line with our policies and the provisions set out below.

2017 - HMPPS/NPS response to NAPO can be found here.

2017 - Ian Lawrence's blog  'VISOR vetting - some clarification about what is going on'

2017 - Napo Briefing

"The employers have accepted that the additional vetting required for ViSOR use is likely to create additional stress for some staff. The NPS has repeated the reassurance that no one will lose their employment simply because of a vetting issue, unless the information uncovered is so serious that the code of conduct is breached."

Jan 2018 - Ian Lawrence

"During the consultation on the extending of ViSOR use, Napo raised a number of concerns about the impact of vetting as well as practice and workload issues. We received some assurances from the employers"

Aug 2018 - Katie Lomas

"The introduction of this wider use of ViSOR was part of the E3 phase 2 programme. At the time of the consultation on phase 2 Napo made representations about the mechanism for vetting"

So it seems there's been 4 years of Spurr saying "This is what will happen" & Napo saying "Ah, but, erm, well, erm...". It's the same inaction & passive complicity that allowed TR to proceed, that allowed the CRC clearances & that has allowed HMPPS to ride roughshod over NPS staff.

“The NPS has repeated the reassurance that no one will lose their employment simply because of a vetting issue”. This is simply not true if ‘vetting failures’ are being shoe-horned into alternative roles against their will. And what happens when there’s no positions in Courts, will ACO, SPO, PO, PSO ‘vetting failures’ be forced into Admin roles? For PO’s and PSO’s more likely forced out of the service!🙁