I know that some colleagues may feel this a controversial view but I would like to hear what colleagues think. I’m sensing that some colleagues in CRCs are not looking forward to being transferred to the NPS and they feel that the CRCs are more representative of what Probation was pre TR and if given the choice would prefer to stay in the CRC. Has anyone else noticed this or feels like this?
I believe these should be one service but in my CRC we have made it work and work well! I’m sad - there are lessons to be learned both sides.
*****
I have heard that some NPS colleagues have negative feelings about CRC colleagues in that they think we've failed, when it's the system that has failed. Plus I heard from a third party that some NPS colleagues feel that CRC do not deserve a pay rise cos we don't work with high risk, write reports etc. Both anecdotes fill me with dread! Plus in my CRC we have some peer mentors some of whom are ex offenders, I hope they'll be welcome cos they do a fantastic job. Yes of course we need to be renationalised but CRC staff need to feel welcome and not treated like second class and failures. That's my view.
*****
From a BBR PSO facilitator perspective I not only work with High Risk in every programme I also write 20 page reports for each BBR chap! Unbelievable views being held there by some!
*****
No way! From NPS in your area I definitely haven't had that feeling at all. The system has failed everyone not any person working on either side. And it was put forward that all colleagues should get paid the same and should be one of the main aspects of this rationalisation. TR never should have happened in the first place but I for 1 can't wait til they scrap the separation and put us back together again!
*****
I’m with you on this. I have only heard positive things and we are all v pleased about coming back together - just need to keep up the fight for the UPW/programmes comrades. X
*****
Only warm welcomes from here! X It's not mentioning the elephant in the room that the split should never had happened in the first place that gets me. x
*****
NPS colleagues. As I also mentioned we have some employees who are ex offenders and they've been a great addition to the CRC. We are after all about rehabilitation and second chances, will they pass the Police vetting?
*****
My view is we need to stand together, get back together, all of us including programmes and UPW. I know the feeling, more changes ahead and no one knows how this is going to work but we need to look after each other. Divisiveness will not help us. Yes there are lessons to learn indeed on both sides but perhaps it is the good stuff we can focus on. Overall we need to look after each other to once again be One Service first.
*****
One new organisation together. David Raho
*****
*****
The problem with both sides as a retired PO is the ethos of why Probation started has got lost, and why therefore believed in it and that it would make a difference to those less fortunate who for some were very risky individuals and needed guidance.
*****
It's not CRC coming into NPS, it's both coming together as a new service, hopefully drawing on the strengths of both. No one is better than anyone else, though I have heard those views. I'm CRC seconded to NPS and I've seen the good and bad aspects of both services, the blue print for the new service brings in the good aspects in my view. If we set aside issues of pay etc, which will hopefully be sorted - we are all trained professionals and should receive the same wage for the tough job we do - we should be looking at working towards the common goals we always have - protecting the public and rehabilitating those we work with.
My view is we need to stand together, get back together, all of us including programmes and UPW. I know the feeling, more changes ahead and no one knows how this is going to work but we need to look after each other. Divisiveness will not help us. Yes there are lessons to learn indeed on both sides but perhaps it is the good stuff we can focus on. Overall we need to look after each other to once again be One Service first.
*****
One new organisation together. David Raho
*****
Yes I agree a new improved one. As I said there are definitely some stuff that needs looking at with “post TR” goggles on.
*****
I would rather stay in the CRC than be assimilated by a dysfunctional organisation. The NPS is like a prison without bars custom made to restrict probation staff. Done some repping that side and much prefer it this side of the fence where we actually have HR people and less robots and better tech etc. It's no picnic but the sandwiches taste better and there is less arrogance and jobsworths. The system failed, not hardworking CRC probation staff. We need a new organisation. David Raho
*****
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this mood amongst many across the country. It is a mixed picture. The core of the concern is that probation must be a locally responsive, locally accountable service. In some ways the CRCs are more local than the nationalised, centralised, bureaucratic one-size-fits-all-&-really-uncomfortably-&-don't-moan NPS. Our view is that what has been announced so far is at best a positive first step - a big one they can't climb back from - but ultimately it will need to continue evolving into a fully unified, fully devolved local public service. Dean Rogers
*****
I thought I was imagining it but clearly some colleagues feel the grass is greener in the CRCs (some of them anyway). TR2 (can we call it that ) I fear will be a disaster worse than TR. It’s a bit like Humpty Dumpty all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put probation back together again.
*****
Probation needs to move forward towards something else otherwise it's just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and as you say will predictably be disastrous. There are some good suggestions floating about, however I am not convinced that key people in the MoJ get it yet. David Raho
*****
Move the NPS into the CRCs.
*****
That has been suggested but my own thinking is along the lines of a newly formed organisation a bit like enlarged Trusts with commissioning powers. Locally accountable and one step removed from central government. David Raho
*****
I described TR as running over an egg with a streamroller and now trying to stick it back together again. It needs a lot more thinking about. Dean Rogers
*****
I agree. A lot more thinking needs to be done. The current timescales are ridiculous and force too many expediencies and compromises. What may seem to be a practical solution to the MoJ is not. They need to have vision, courage and the drive to build something fit for purpose that is as right as possible from the get go. I understand what you were saying about evolving and devolving but what I want to see is a quantum leap by the MoJ in their thinking about probation and for them to start joining things up and making use of the possibilities and window of opportunity available now before the unique set of circumstances evaporate into the ether. Every day I feel a growing sense of urgency that they are simply going to let things take their course because it’s all they know and are used to rather than gripping the live wires and harnessing all the energy to make something really good. Unfortunately it is like the Dementors from Harry Potter are in charge of TR2 and focused on sucking the soul out of Probation rather than making something better. If they came up with an original plan I’d be so shocked I might give up Marmite for 48 hours. David Raho
*****
I can just see the faces of NPS programmes staff being told they too are being sold off down the private river just like the other CRC programme staff! I’m in the CRC and yet I deliver programmes to high riskers every day....
*****
The issue you have with all the suggestions other then assimilation is that this would require the MoJ to acknowledge the serious shortcomings in the NPS, which it shows no sign of doing. The things we cite as critical flaws such as the bureaucratisation of probation work, the national uniformity and the standardisation of 'quality' are heralded as triumphs of the NPS. You just have to look at the PR that comes out from HMPPS about three sides of the NPS to see that they are unlikely to rewrite the model and relinquish that direct control. Add to that the further erosion of probation autonomy that is OMiC and it's hard to see how the vision of a full return to localised probation provision is even possible let alone desirable to the policy makers at MoJ.
*****
I would rather stay in the CRC than be assimilated by a dysfunctional organisation. The NPS is like a prison without bars custom made to restrict probation staff. Done some repping that side and much prefer it this side of the fence where we actually have HR people and less robots and better tech etc. It's no picnic but the sandwiches taste better and there is less arrogance and jobsworths. The system failed, not hardworking CRC probation staff. We need a new organisation. David Raho
*****
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support this mood amongst many across the country. It is a mixed picture. The core of the concern is that probation must be a locally responsive, locally accountable service. In some ways the CRCs are more local than the nationalised, centralised, bureaucratic one-size-fits-all-&-really-uncomfortably-&-don't-moan NPS. Our view is that what has been announced so far is at best a positive first step - a big one they can't climb back from - but ultimately it will need to continue evolving into a fully unified, fully devolved local public service. Dean Rogers
*****
I thought I was imagining it but clearly some colleagues feel the grass is greener in the CRCs (some of them anyway). TR2 (can we call it that ) I fear will be a disaster worse than TR. It’s a bit like Humpty Dumpty all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put probation back together again.
*****
Probation needs to move forward towards something else otherwise it's just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and as you say will predictably be disastrous. There are some good suggestions floating about, however I am not convinced that key people in the MoJ get it yet. David Raho
*****
Move the NPS into the CRCs.
*****
That has been suggested but my own thinking is along the lines of a newly formed organisation a bit like enlarged Trusts with commissioning powers. Locally accountable and one step removed from central government. David Raho
*****
I described TR as running over an egg with a streamroller and now trying to stick it back together again. It needs a lot more thinking about. Dean Rogers
*****
I agree. A lot more thinking needs to be done. The current timescales are ridiculous and force too many expediencies and compromises. What may seem to be a practical solution to the MoJ is not. They need to have vision, courage and the drive to build something fit for purpose that is as right as possible from the get go. I understand what you were saying about evolving and devolving but what I want to see is a quantum leap by the MoJ in their thinking about probation and for them to start joining things up and making use of the possibilities and window of opportunity available now before the unique set of circumstances evaporate into the ether. Every day I feel a growing sense of urgency that they are simply going to let things take their course because it’s all they know and are used to rather than gripping the live wires and harnessing all the energy to make something really good. Unfortunately it is like the Dementors from Harry Potter are in charge of TR2 and focused on sucking the soul out of Probation rather than making something better. If they came up with an original plan I’d be so shocked I might give up Marmite for 48 hours. David Raho
*****
I can just see the faces of NPS programmes staff being told they too are being sold off down the private river just like the other CRC programme staff! I’m in the CRC and yet I deliver programmes to high riskers every day....
*****
The issue you have with all the suggestions other then assimilation is that this would require the MoJ to acknowledge the serious shortcomings in the NPS, which it shows no sign of doing. The things we cite as critical flaws such as the bureaucratisation of probation work, the national uniformity and the standardisation of 'quality' are heralded as triumphs of the NPS. You just have to look at the PR that comes out from HMPPS about three sides of the NPS to see that they are unlikely to rewrite the model and relinquish that direct control. Add to that the further erosion of probation autonomy that is OMiC and it's hard to see how the vision of a full return to localised probation provision is even possible let alone desirable to the policy makers at MoJ.
*****
In many ways it will be unrealistic to expect the big State department to accept its flaws - that's at the root of what's wrong. Probation has to keep the debate going and keep arguing for continued evolution. On a positive note though - the MoJ is a hugely vulnerable department - an experiment from 1997 that hasn't worked. A new regime or new perspective on the MoJ - one that gives up on it and starts again - is a real possibility and could accelerate the evolution for probation. After all in 2000 they had a big idea of setting an NPS and quickly gave up. It is just important not to allow barriers to further devolution to be erected now. Dean Rogers
In many ways it will be unrealistic to expect the big State department to accept its flaws - that's at the root of what's wrong. Probation has to keep the debate going and keep arguing for continued evolution. On a positive note though - the MoJ is a hugely vulnerable department - an experiment from 1997 that hasn't worked. A new regime or new perspective on the MoJ - one that gives up on it and starts again - is a real possibility and could accelerate the evolution for probation. After all in 2000 they had a big idea of setting an NPS and quickly gave up. It is just important not to allow barriers to further devolution to be erected now. Dean Rogers
*****
Our best hope I think is that justice gets swept up in the wider devolution agenda and that as a result the provision of probation services falls to new local governance structures. It makes sense, take London for example, probation work is so interconnected with MOPACs work it would make sense for probation to be overseen by that office.
*****
Indeed - the challenge there though is how almost bankrupt local structures afford to take staff on? MOPAC want the accountability to rest with them but not the cost/responsibility of staff. There are ways to do it but it gets a bit complicated and needs care and attention. Dean Rogers
*****
Agreed. The answer probably lies with voting in a government with a genuine desire to have a well run and well funded public sector. Not just grind it into the dirt in the name of austerity. We live in hope.
*****
That's my experience too. CRC staff deal with HRoSH cases everyday in BBR and RESOLVE groups. It's okay unions saying 'ultimately' 'eventually and talking about 'evolution' but my fear is that offender management gets through the reunification door and the MoJ slams it behind them leaving Interventions outside for the sharks to devour. That's not acceptable!
*****
Not acceptable is putting it mildly. And we stay at the bottom of the pay scale still whilst dealing with high riskers! Even TSP has its fair share of violent and sexual offenders, all programmes do. I’m sad to say but I just can’t hang around and watch our careers decimated by yet another split. At some point I’ll stop my whinges and leave, among with many other highly experienced staff we know.
*****
Most of us in my office (NPS and CRC) who were there pre TR think it’s amazing news and still view each other as one. A lot of new staff have no knowledge of pre TR and their views are different I find.
*****
I left NPS because I do not like the travel of direction. It is a relentless monolithic organisation that has not a care for its employees. HMP Probation is not an organisation I wish to be associated with.
*****
It may depend on where people are and what service they have been allowed to deliver. Management makes the biggest difference, whether NPS or CRC. Some CRCs have had huge caseloads and not enough time to do any work.
*****
As a temp working around various CRCs and a year of NPS - both are flawed under TR. the civil service approach is dysfunctional and doesn’t respond to local needs of staff or offenders whilst CRC’s are profit driven hence the problems there. Just a thought for MoJ, how about local trusts - now there’s an idea!
*****
I think CRCs main problem is the unmanageable caseloads. There is room for innovation and it is encouraged but when you have the day job to do there isn’t enough time for innovation. It's so stressful and so many staff have left as a result. Being one organisation will be good but I have had over a decade of NPS experience so my views may be different to others. I think us old timers from both NPS and CRC welcome it. From my experience I think it’s the less experienced staff on both sides (who’ve only known it as it is) who have the problem. That is a generalisation I know.
*****
I agree as an old timer. We know, and understand the complexity of the criminal system, but, I hope that when we are together again, the NPS might listen to some of the newer ideals. It’s up to us old timers to teach the newbies about Probation, as before, it’s not about ‘book’ learning but an understanding, a caring. Those we all deal with have complex needs. It’s a unique role for all Probation staff.
*****
The sad part of all this is that we are under the skin one service. The issues that have between staff in various camps is because of the dismal few who have spread their dark words and deeds and people have listened and believed. The wage increase was done deliberately to create a divide and if you look deeper some stupid people have bought into it. Well let me tell you, I have worked in and out of this service since 1990. I have in the main been as loyal an employee as I can be. I have been reorganised 15 times! And done all that has been asked of me. I’m better than no one. And no one is better than me. If what some believe is their right to be payed more than me because of the risk process. Well let me tell you this. Almost all of my 77 red red/Amber risk punters are in the community. Not tucked up in side. I deal with DV perps day in day out and I consider them to be most of the risky individuals posing risks to all including children whom I took a pledge to protect along with all probation employees. So if some of those individuals don’t think I’m worth my wage well it’s back at you. Because my worth is that I’m a trained probation officer. I learned my trade when being a PO meant a hell of a lot. Civil service will never knock that out of me. No matter how they see me as second class. So let me tell those NPS colleagues who think they are better than me. Then hello cos no you are not. Because I come second to no one. So if it’s to be a reunion then best those colleagues keep their views to themselves cos like it or lump it back CRC are coming. And just remember it was not the workers the genuine workers who ever wanted the split.
*****
I think there are issues on both sides, all of which have been covered very eloquently by responses to this post. Without sounding trite I guess it doesn’t ultimately matter what individuals feel about which is better - CRC or NPS. The priority is what’s best for the service users and public and TR2 must be better than what they’ve had over the past 4 years.Our best hope I think is that justice gets swept up in the wider devolution agenda and that as a result the provision of probation services falls to new local governance structures. It makes sense, take London for example, probation work is so interconnected with MOPACs work it would make sense for probation to be overseen by that office.
*****
Indeed - the challenge there though is how almost bankrupt local structures afford to take staff on? MOPAC want the accountability to rest with them but not the cost/responsibility of staff. There are ways to do it but it gets a bit complicated and needs care and attention. Dean Rogers
*****
Agreed. The answer probably lies with voting in a government with a genuine desire to have a well run and well funded public sector. Not just grind it into the dirt in the name of austerity. We live in hope.
*****
That's my experience too. CRC staff deal with HRoSH cases everyday in BBR and RESOLVE groups. It's okay unions saying 'ultimately' 'eventually and talking about 'evolution' but my fear is that offender management gets through the reunification door and the MoJ slams it behind them leaving Interventions outside for the sharks to devour. That's not acceptable!
*****
Not acceptable is putting it mildly. And we stay at the bottom of the pay scale still whilst dealing with high riskers! Even TSP has its fair share of violent and sexual offenders, all programmes do. I’m sad to say but I just can’t hang around and watch our careers decimated by yet another split. At some point I’ll stop my whinges and leave, among with many other highly experienced staff we know.
*****
Most of us in my office (NPS and CRC) who were there pre TR think it’s amazing news and still view each other as one. A lot of new staff have no knowledge of pre TR and their views are different I find.
*****
I left NPS because I do not like the travel of direction. It is a relentless monolithic organisation that has not a care for its employees. HMP Probation is not an organisation I wish to be associated with.
*****
It may depend on where people are and what service they have been allowed to deliver. Management makes the biggest difference, whether NPS or CRC. Some CRCs have had huge caseloads and not enough time to do any work.
*****
As a temp working around various CRCs and a year of NPS - both are flawed under TR. the civil service approach is dysfunctional and doesn’t respond to local needs of staff or offenders whilst CRC’s are profit driven hence the problems there. Just a thought for MoJ, how about local trusts - now there’s an idea!
*****
I think CRCs main problem is the unmanageable caseloads. There is room for innovation and it is encouraged but when you have the day job to do there isn’t enough time for innovation. It's so stressful and so many staff have left as a result. Being one organisation will be good but I have had over a decade of NPS experience so my views may be different to others. I think us old timers from both NPS and CRC welcome it. From my experience I think it’s the less experienced staff on both sides (who’ve only known it as it is) who have the problem. That is a generalisation I know.
*****
I agree as an old timer. We know, and understand the complexity of the criminal system, but, I hope that when we are together again, the NPS might listen to some of the newer ideals. It’s up to us old timers to teach the newbies about Probation, as before, it’s not about ‘book’ learning but an understanding, a caring. Those we all deal with have complex needs. It’s a unique role for all Probation staff.
*****
The sad part of all this is that we are under the skin one service. The issues that have between staff in various camps is because of the dismal few who have spread their dark words and deeds and people have listened and believed. The wage increase was done deliberately to create a divide and if you look deeper some stupid people have bought into it. Well let me tell you, I have worked in and out of this service since 1990. I have in the main been as loyal an employee as I can be. I have been reorganised 15 times! And done all that has been asked of me. I’m better than no one. And no one is better than me. If what some believe is their right to be payed more than me because of the risk process. Well let me tell you this. Almost all of my 77 red red/Amber risk punters are in the community. Not tucked up in side. I deal with DV perps day in day out and I consider them to be most of the risky individuals posing risks to all including children whom I took a pledge to protect along with all probation employees. So if some of those individuals don’t think I’m worth my wage well it’s back at you. Because my worth is that I’m a trained probation officer. I learned my trade when being a PO meant a hell of a lot. Civil service will never knock that out of me. No matter how they see me as second class. So let me tell those NPS colleagues who think they are better than me. Then hello cos no you are not. Because I come second to no one. So if it’s to be a reunion then best those colleagues keep their views to themselves cos like it or lump it back CRC are coming. And just remember it was not the workers the genuine workers who ever wanted the split.
*****
*****
The problem with both sides as a retired PO is the ethos of why Probation started has got lost, and why therefore believed in it and that it would make a difference to those less fortunate who for some were very risky individuals and needed guidance.
*****
It's not CRC coming into NPS, it's both coming together as a new service, hopefully drawing on the strengths of both. No one is better than anyone else, though I have heard those views. I'm CRC seconded to NPS and I've seen the good and bad aspects of both services, the blue print for the new service brings in the good aspects in my view. If we set aside issues of pay etc, which will hopefully be sorted - we are all trained professionals and should receive the same wage for the tough job we do - we should be looking at working towards the common goals we always have - protecting the public and rehabilitating those we work with.
*****
I was working in Xxxxxxx pre split and loved it. When the split happened I was allocated to the CRC, that was not my choice and I resented it at first. Looking at it now, I'm glad I was put in the CRC. I've had abuse from all agencies slating the CRC where I've had to remind them I work for the CRC, I've also heard constant put downs about the CRC by NPS colleagues. It's those put downs that need to be addressed, how can we move forward and merge back without addressing what happened/was said in the past. I'm not comfortable in the merge back for that very reason and if I am in the service at the point the merge happens I hope it's addressed. To be perfectly honest when I first heard the CRC was finishing I was gutted and instantly had reservations about moving into one service again. Some NPS staff have been very supportive especially in the small office we work in and good colleagues, but it's those minority within NPS Teams that have constantly slated the CRC feeding the divide that have caused anxiety/unrest about the merger back... Also our new CRC provider seems like a decent employer to date...
*****
None of us had a choice over the split. I went on strike and yet I was placed in the CRC camp. I want us to be one service again... so I hope it all gets figured out as I miss my colleagues (whom I never wanted to be parted from!).
*****
What I really find dismaying is the fact that there is a debate about the reunification of the Probation Service! Why do some feel others are less worthy. Sometimes it’s good to look out over that wall and see beyond your own beliefs because every single probation person on both sides has a role to play. I’m not going to say new venture because we’re like a broken toy at the moment waiting to put all the limbs back in their rightful place. So let’s all pull together because there has been enough tug of war - no one from where I’m sitting is a winner. Same punters same service. Same difference.
*****
It’s not reunification. A huge amount of colleagues in UPW, progs, TTG are remaining private.
*****
It's important to acknowledge CRC staff are not returning to a pre-TR nirvana (if one ever existed) but a highly bureaucratic 'top down' NPS. The main strength will be bringing most staff back under national collective bargaining. I know some on this thread have argued they can get better deals in local CRCs, but I don't see much evidence of that over that last 5 years. Whatever marginal gains have been made for some members have been more than offset by cuts and impoverishment of of service elsewhere. Just ask ex-Working Links staff.
I was working in Xxxxxxx pre split and loved it. When the split happened I was allocated to the CRC, that was not my choice and I resented it at first. Looking at it now, I'm glad I was put in the CRC. I've had abuse from all agencies slating the CRC where I've had to remind them I work for the CRC, I've also heard constant put downs about the CRC by NPS colleagues. It's those put downs that need to be addressed, how can we move forward and merge back without addressing what happened/was said in the past. I'm not comfortable in the merge back for that very reason and if I am in the service at the point the merge happens I hope it's addressed. To be perfectly honest when I first heard the CRC was finishing I was gutted and instantly had reservations about moving into one service again. Some NPS staff have been very supportive especially in the small office we work in and good colleagues, but it's those minority within NPS Teams that have constantly slated the CRC feeding the divide that have caused anxiety/unrest about the merger back... Also our new CRC provider seems like a decent employer to date...
*****
None of us had a choice over the split. I went on strike and yet I was placed in the CRC camp. I want us to be one service again... so I hope it all gets figured out as I miss my colleagues (whom I never wanted to be parted from!).
*****
What I really find dismaying is the fact that there is a debate about the reunification of the Probation Service! Why do some feel others are less worthy. Sometimes it’s good to look out over that wall and see beyond your own beliefs because every single probation person on both sides has a role to play. I’m not going to say new venture because we’re like a broken toy at the moment waiting to put all the limbs back in their rightful place. So let’s all pull together because there has been enough tug of war - no one from where I’m sitting is a winner. Same punters same service. Same difference.
*****
It’s not reunification. A huge amount of colleagues in UPW, progs, TTG are remaining private.
*****
It's important to acknowledge CRC staff are not returning to a pre-TR nirvana (if one ever existed) but a highly bureaucratic 'top down' NPS. The main strength will be bringing most staff back under national collective bargaining. I know some on this thread have argued they can get better deals in local CRCs, but I don't see much evidence of that over that last 5 years. Whatever marginal gains have been made for some members have been more than offset by cuts and impoverishment of of service elsewhere. Just ask ex-Working Links staff.
*****
The NPS has flaws. In my view the work 'in the room' could often be a lot better. I personally know CRC colleagues who excel at this. No one organisation can be said to be better at everything.
*****
I think the message seems to be unclear - it is not that the CRC’s are being ‘taken over’ by the NPS but more that both the CRC and NPS are coming together as a new service. Hopefully it will eradicate some of the ‘superiority complex’ that there seems to be.
I think the message seems to be unclear - it is not that the CRC’s are being ‘taken over’ by the NPS but more that both the CRC and NPS are coming together as a new service. Hopefully it will eradicate some of the ‘superiority complex’ that there seems to be.
*****
What I would like to see is a completely new unified service. There isn’t currently a plan to do this. CRC contracts end in 2021. CRCs then revert to the client which is the MoJ of which the NPS is one of their services. One of the mechanisms for transferring different groups or all staff to the NPS is TUPE. What I am proposing is that a new improved organisation the National Probation Agency is created with traditional probation values and the care, supervision, rehabilitation and resettlement of those who have committed crime at its foundation. Staff from both the NPS and former CRC staff can then be TUPE'd to this.
Simple really. I think this message is clear. I am not anti any group of staff or any particular organisation. When commissioning and contracting providers to do work whether private or public sector, it’s a challenge to get the contracts and operating model right. There is of course much to learn from TR1 but the definition of stupidity is to repeat the same mistakes expecting a different outcome.
What I would like to see is a completely new unified service. There isn’t currently a plan to do this. CRC contracts end in 2021. CRCs then revert to the client which is the MoJ of which the NPS is one of their services. One of the mechanisms for transferring different groups or all staff to the NPS is TUPE. What I am proposing is that a new improved organisation the National Probation Agency is created with traditional probation values and the care, supervision, rehabilitation and resettlement of those who have committed crime at its foundation. Staff from both the NPS and former CRC staff can then be TUPE'd to this.
Simple really. I think this message is clear. I am not anti any group of staff or any particular organisation. When commissioning and contracting providers to do work whether private or public sector, it’s a challenge to get the contracts and operating model right. There is of course much to learn from TR1 but the definition of stupidity is to repeat the same mistakes expecting a different outcome.
The centralised NPS model has major flaws and and is financially a failure. The private providers were sold a pup and hamstrung from the outset having trusted the MoJ too much and the third sector had funding cut. We need to use what we have learned and come up with something better and say to the MoJ ‘Are we learning yet?’ If they are not learning then we need to point them in the right direction because past experience indicates some distorted thinking and a definite tendency to ignore expert advice and ultimately indulge in poor decision making at our expense. David Raho
I have not read all of this but I think maybe some are missing the basic point - where does and should probation work get its authority to operate.
ReplyDeleteThis was not explained to me when I started out in 1973.
I now realise probation officers were called officers of the court because they were appointed by (Inner London was a special case back then) their LOCAL magistrate's Probation Committee which was effectively a sub committee of the local Magistrates Courts Committee which may have been a shared service between several petty sessional divisions.
All our work (except for parole or other release on licence cases) came under the direct jurisdiction of the local magistrate's court unless in occasional cases reserved to a sentencing court or person.
Hence properly, like the courts, probation workers need to be independent of direct State Management.
A further problem is that - now; I have the impression that local justices have more or less been taken over by the State, especially with the appointment of so many District judges (formerly known as Stipendiary [paid/employed] magistrates) - maybe something equivalent to LOCAL probation committees now need to be (re)created - with some democratic authority from the local area with representation by the local judiciary.
I expect this contribution will be considered off topic or in some other way inappropriate but I maintain this is the starting point for consideration before the rest of the structure of probation employing agencies are considered.
Any fool knows that it is stupid to have two probation agencies with responsibility for the same geographical area!
Fair points, Andrew.
DeleteThe Courts are where our workload originates and as such where better to place the authority? I have always argued for a pro-active presence in the courts where we can assist the process of justice with measured and independent intervention, and where we can manage our workload from the earliest point of contact.
The notion of state-controlled rehabilitation is simply a nonsense - always was, always will be. Probation has been forcibly crammed into the silo model of control & command, lubricated by liberal amounts of power & money in an effort to prove it fits. It doesn't fit. And it doesn't work.
Probation, the Courts and Justice need to be taken back into the bosom of an independent authority - and that does NOT mean PCCs, who are aligned to party politics.
Considerable irreparable damage has been done to Probation-as-was.
Probation-as-will-be needs to be very carefully defined - something Andrew, Getafix & JB have all highlighted many times here.
And once again the client is completely missing from this discussion. How will this reimagining of the structure of probation help or benefit people's rehabilitation? Probation is there to help prisoners reintegrate back into society and to help rehabilitate them so they don't reoffend and this seems to get completely lost amongst all the bitching by probation staff in both NPS and CRC.
ReplyDeleteAgreed - I had gone on long enough above - but clients follow when we return to consent probation orders - it really does make a difference.
DeleteYet again I have forgotten the precise date & legislation when consent was no longer required and I failed to campaign loudly enough to point up the damage - but it was a vital part of the move towards Ministerial control which began in 1984 with SNOP - statement of national objectives and priorities for probation - when Leon Brittan was Home Secretary.
I agree. TR2 is not reunification. It's simply assimilating Offender Management into the NPS. The NPS is a very different animal to Probation Trusts. There is no such thing as putting things 'back' or 'going back' to the NPS. It's a new organisation that bears little resemblance to what went before, staffed by people who, in the main, have no idea what has happened to their colleagues in the CRC's. Sadly, there is an all pervading sense of superiority that comes right from the top, and a distrust of CRC colleagues skills and abilities to do the job properly. It's going to be harder to merge than it was to split.
ReplyDeleteI'm NPS and I am anxious about the return. However, the thought of me having to take on a medium risk caseload from CRC where they have been managed differently is something I'm pretty annoyed about. I don't know what probation will look like, but it's current state cannot go on.....what's going to happen to management? Bye bye CRC spo/aco?
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about it 12.41. CRCs have not been managing anything at all from what I have seen.
DeletePray tell 18:51 what have you seen ? - these kind of comments are what continue to create the divide that TR1 started and our so called leaders continue to be complicit about - 1241 the majority of staff within CRC's have and will continue to manage their high case loads based on risk as they did pre TR1 - the questions need to be asked of those staff who reached the dizzy heights within the private companies who continue to introduce ridiculous models that I would challenge anyone ( and I mean anyone !!!! ) to be able to effectively manage - let's remember who the REAL enemies are here and not battle between ourselves as that leaves those that sold us ALL up the creek in the first instance and the management that kept very quiet to feather their own nests ( and from where I'm sitting continue to do so ) to stay where they are and introduce more demoralising / divisive models influencing the MOJ and minister's alike as they have and will do to save their own skins , putting the blame on front line staff be out CRC or NPS
DeleteI stood against TR by striking, as did some of my now CRC colleagues who were still sold down the river and I campaigned to bring about their return back to what is a different service...I am looking forward to working with them in the little time i have before i retire as I know there are a lot of skilled and experienced practitioners in the CRC...we need to be united and ready for the OMIC crisis that is looming...dont believe me? Two months ago we were told that prisons in the North were fully staffed and ready to go until an e mail last week highlighted vacancies throughout the Northern prisons, something aint right with that calculation and never forget those Chief officers who pushed TR just to get their three year protected pay deal with their weasel words, had they stood and lost out as many of us did we wouldn't be in this mess, so the next time our lords and masters try to sell us something, ask what's in it for them...
ReplyDeleteOur lords and masters have indeed cocked it up and OMiC is the baby that will be thrown out with the water!
ReplyDeleteThey have set up and piloted a system which is supposed to be the best model available and going to solve all of our problems. More PO’s in prisons.
However, they have also invented a different system for those prisons they can’t staff with probation officers either because people live too far away or they simply don’t want to work in prisons. It uses a third of the staff but according to our leaders, is every bit as good if not better than OmiC!
In the words of Grayling, of course it will work, I have a gut feeling.
The idea of TUPEing everyone into the same organisation is fraught with problems. It leaves everyone on different terms and conditions. Under TUPE you can't cherry pick the ones you want.
ReplyDeleteThe best type of agreement is where all terms and conditions are rounded up to the best available and I can't see the NPS accepting that!
I stumbled against these posts and it has been refreshing reading all the comments. I feel the whole process of TR and post TR has been divisive - some staff didn't have a choice where they ended up. Ultimately, we all have a job to do and so we get on with it. I believe both NPS and CRC have experienced staffs; with skills and knowledge who work daily to meet the organisation’s goals of reducing reoffending and contributing to rehabilitation. It is however often forgotten that resources i.e. sufficient staff, good IT, flexibility, settled working environment (not constantly bombarded by news of what is being achieved and not achieved) form the pillar of job satisfaction and great staff morale. From what I have read it appears the attitude of staff feeling deserving (NPS) over the others(CRC) on pay-rise could possibly emulate a civil war whereby a community has turned against each other as they cannot agree or support the main purpose of doing their jobs. This is very sad in particular when one of the values should be a non-judgemental approach/equal opportunity. I have been in the service for many years dating back to SWLPS/LPT/RISE/CRC. I work with victims of domestic abuse in programmes (where Risk can never be classified at anything but HIGH) and yet contending again with the fact we are going to be the distant relations again. I continue to do my job because I value change, I believe in rehabilitation and collaborative working. I do hope those powers to be i.e. MOJ etc, really give thought to the direction "Probation" is heading and also to look at the aim of re nationalisation and the messages that is being sent to the public that we serve!!!!!
ReplyDelete