Napo steps up reunification arguments in advance of TUC and Party Conference season
Napo’s campaign and negotiating teams have joined up to produce the latest ‘no holds barred’ position statement around the future of Probation. In a document that will form the basis of our contributions at the upcoming TUC and Labour Party conference fringe events, cross-party MPs, Peers and the media, the union sets out its negotiating demands on behalf of all members working in the NPS or a CRC as well as outlining Napo’s vision for the future structure of Probation under full public ownership and control.
The report focusses on:
- The restoration of all probation work back into public control and ownership
- The need to ensure that the earlier and already scheduled transfer of offender management work to the NPS in Wales becomes the benchmark for the process to follow in England
- All probation staff to be placed on NPS pay, terms and conditions in advance of the move to transfer offender management work and the letting of any new contracts to so-called Innovation Partners and sub-contractors who would form part of a Dynamic Framework.
- Continuity of employment for the appx 8,000 CRC staff transferring into the NPS
- A fully integrated and unified service, with all core functions, including unpaid work and interventions, delivered from a single organisation in an integrated way;
- A Probation Services that exists outside of the Civil Service but in the public sector, as a non-departmental government body in the same way as organisations like Cafcass and many others. This would allow for a degree of consistency through a national structure but would enable the development of culture and values that support Probation Practice.
- Probation Practice to be based on evidence and ‘what works’. Changes need to be made to ways of working when indicated by research and evidence and best practice should be modelled on this research and evidence, not the convenience of the organisation or the needs of a contract.
- The link to the community to be prioritised. What works in one village, town or city might not work elsewhere. There must be a facility to respond to local needs and priorities and to shape service delivery to suit. Frontline practitioners must be empowered to work in a way that meets the needs of both their client and their community rather than to an agenda set central. There should not be a separation between Probation Services and other services and for this to work in a joined up way there needs to be local control of the system.
Ian Lawrence, General Secretary
--oo00oo--
Probation reunification – the next steps
A briefing from Napo (August 2019)
Napo warmly welcomes the government’s decision to reunify probation but is concerned that plans include the provision that vital parts of the service are still to be run for profit. We sincerely thank all supportive parliamentarians for their decisive pressure on ministers to help bring about this historic U-turn.
The decision to return 80% of work currently managed by private-sector Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) back to the public-sector National Probation Service (NPS), when contracts expire in April 2021 is a major victory for common sense – and a clear government admission that the grandiose vanity project to privatise probation has well and truly failed.
Alongside many others, Napo has campaigned tirelessly against the devastating Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms in 2014, led by then-justice secretary Chris Grayling. We warned that probation could not, and should never be, run for profit, and that splitting the award-winning service would undermine public safety. Unfortunately, our member’s serious misgivings have been proved right, with failing CRCs needing to be bailed out with at least an additional £280 million of taxpayers money. Meanwhile, the number of serious further offences (SFO’s) most usually involving murder and/or sexual assault have soared by a staggering 23% over the last two years and over 40% since TR was implemented.
Going forward, Napo insists there are still serious public-protection problems within the new plans to retain a so-called “mixed market” model, with vitally important interventions and unpaid work placements remaining in private hands. The track record of the private sector in supervising a client base from which serious reoffending frequently occurs is lamentable, and it is scandalous that ministers are prepared to run that risk against all empirical evidence to the contrary.
Scapegoating of staff is unacceptable
Serious questions also need to be raised about the culpability and potential criminality of some of the private probation providers following a number of serious further offences that have taken place under their governance. This is especially the case within the South West and Wales areas previously run by Working Links (who entered into Administration in February this year), and who have been replaced by the CRC previously covering Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Many warnings were raised by Napo with Ministers and the employer about their reckless operational model, but these went unheeded.
As a result of unmanageable workloads and operational systems that were (and still are) unfit for purpose, we are also seeing an alarming rise in SFO disciplinary investigations involving our hard pressed and exhausted practitioners working for the NPS. Many staff in the NPS who are supervising high-risk clients are typically facing workloads of almost twice their capacity, due to 1000 unfilled vacancies across the NPS (which are another direct result of the fragmented service created by Grayling).
Napo is not prepared to see our members scapegoated following these investigations, (or during the increasing number of inquests that they are being asked to provide evidence to), in order for politicians to lay the blame somewhere else for their complicity in destroying a once Gold-Standard Public Service.
We are grateful to shadow Labour minister Laura Pidcock for raising this specific issue at May’s Justice Questions, telling MPs that “Napo has called for the scapegoating of probation officers to end, especially after the reviewing of cases that have already been covered by a review,” and asking: “Does the Minister agree that the probation service should take responsibility for structural failures leading to serious further offences, rather than hanging its workers out to dry?”
In response, Minister Robert Buckland paid tribute to probation officers, saying: “They are dedicated public servants who use their professional judgment and skill to help assess risk, which is an onerous task. I do not approve of scapegoating. I expect the service to support probation officers who are under pressure, but for cases where there needs to be an investigation, due process then has to take place.”
Our vision for the future
In our current negotiations with Ministers and senior MoJ and HMPPS leaders, Napo has made it clear to that we have a number of ‘red lines’, including:
Napo have four key demands for the future of Probation:
Fully integrated service provision
In all of the many criticisms of TR the split in the service between the NPS and CRCs has been universally acknowledged as a cause of poor service provision, increased bureaucracy, duplication of work and communication issues. Napo want a fully integrated and unified service, with all core functions - including unpaid work and interventions delivered from a single organisation. This does not preclude the involvement of specialist provision by the third sector in a partnership arrangement but ensures that the management and delivery of core services is carried out in a co-ordinated manner.
Keeping probation in the public sector and never for profit, but out of the civil service
Our members agree that nobody should profit from crime and equally no one should profit from the delivery of Justice as a result of those crimes. The delivery of Probation Services belongs in the public sector but the move to the Civil Service as a result of TR has meant that the National Probation Service is now overly bureaucratic and follows a top down “command and control” culture. This means that the responsivity to local priorities that was once a key feature of Probation has been lost and innovation is reserved to those promoted to senior positions rather than open to all. Probation Officers are, as part of their training, encouraged to think critically about the work that they are doing and the systems in which they are doing it. This is almost impossible from within the Civil Service where criticism of the establishment is forbidden.
For many years Probation has struggled for recognition and focus against the forced partnership with the Prison Service. Although we recognise the advantages of working closely with our colleagues in the Prison Service we are not an adjunct to that service and while there are many areas where our work and ways of working align, there are also many areas where they do not. Successive Governments have failed to understand this reality making it nigh on impossible for the Probation Service to focus on developing its own culture and values.
Our demand is for Probation Services to exist outside of the Civil Service but in the public sector, as a non-departmental government body( in the same way as organisations like CAFCASS and many others). This would allow for a degree of consistency through a national structure but would enable the development of more effective probation practices.
A service built on evidence based practice
There is a wealth of evidence about how to support people to desist from offending. Research into desistance and risk assessment and management is abundant, yet little of this knowledge is being employed in redesigning Probation Services. Much of the pressure that staff leaving the service describe is about being asked to work in ways which they feel do not represent good practice and which in some cases are dangerous. There is no sign of these lessons being learned. In addition there have been attempts to silence those who raise concerns about practice and the evidence of a need for change has been suppressed, for example in the case of the report exposing serious problems about Sex Offender Treatment Programmes in prisons.
At the same time as the feted reintegration of offender management work following TR, the other big project is the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) project. OMiC builds in multiple changes of Offender Manager despite the fact that such changes were criticised so much in the TR model that it caused a significant change of policy and hastened the move to reintegration.
All probation practice should be based on evidence, and changes should be made to ways of working based on this and not the convenience of the organisation or the needs of a private contract.
Rooting Probation in the local community and partnering with local specialist providers
Probation is about people; and people exist in communities. The link to the community is vital and must be prioritised. What works in one village, town or city might not work elsewhere. There must be a facility to respond to local needs and priorities and to shape service delivery to suit. Frontline practitioners must be empowered to work in a way that meets the needs of both their client and their community rather than to a centralised agenda.
There are many third sector providers working in response to local needs that might be excellent future partners for the delivery of probation services, either as a contractor or in other arrangements. Sadly, many of these very local services were simply frozen out of the system due to TR but where they exist they should be involved in an appropriate way. Large contracts are not the way to deliver such innovative and responsive partnerships; as smaller third-sector organisations cannot compete with large companies who are better able to offer cash guarantees and present artificially low bids. There should never be a separation between probation services and the support mechanisms that exist, but working together in a joined up way is often impossible when there is no local control or accountability over the system.
Suggested actions by Parliamentarians
Supportive MPs and Peers are encouraged to consider asking one of the following questions when opportunities arise.
Katie Lomas National Chair
Probation reunification – the next steps
A briefing from Napo (August 2019)
Napo warmly welcomes the government’s decision to reunify probation but is concerned that plans include the provision that vital parts of the service are still to be run for profit. We sincerely thank all supportive parliamentarians for their decisive pressure on ministers to help bring about this historic U-turn.
The decision to return 80% of work currently managed by private-sector Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) back to the public-sector National Probation Service (NPS), when contracts expire in April 2021 is a major victory for common sense – and a clear government admission that the grandiose vanity project to privatise probation has well and truly failed.
Alongside many others, Napo has campaigned tirelessly against the devastating Transforming Rehabilitation (TR) reforms in 2014, led by then-justice secretary Chris Grayling. We warned that probation could not, and should never be, run for profit, and that splitting the award-winning service would undermine public safety. Unfortunately, our member’s serious misgivings have been proved right, with failing CRCs needing to be bailed out with at least an additional £280 million of taxpayers money. Meanwhile, the number of serious further offences (SFO’s) most usually involving murder and/or sexual assault have soared by a staggering 23% over the last two years and over 40% since TR was implemented.
Going forward, Napo insists there are still serious public-protection problems within the new plans to retain a so-called “mixed market” model, with vitally important interventions and unpaid work placements remaining in private hands. The track record of the private sector in supervising a client base from which serious reoffending frequently occurs is lamentable, and it is scandalous that ministers are prepared to run that risk against all empirical evidence to the contrary.
Scapegoating of staff is unacceptable
Serious questions also need to be raised about the culpability and potential criminality of some of the private probation providers following a number of serious further offences that have taken place under their governance. This is especially the case within the South West and Wales areas previously run by Working Links (who entered into Administration in February this year), and who have been replaced by the CRC previously covering Kent, Surrey and Sussex. Many warnings were raised by Napo with Ministers and the employer about their reckless operational model, but these went unheeded.
As a result of unmanageable workloads and operational systems that were (and still are) unfit for purpose, we are also seeing an alarming rise in SFO disciplinary investigations involving our hard pressed and exhausted practitioners working for the NPS. Many staff in the NPS who are supervising high-risk clients are typically facing workloads of almost twice their capacity, due to 1000 unfilled vacancies across the NPS (which are another direct result of the fragmented service created by Grayling).
Napo is not prepared to see our members scapegoated following these investigations, (or during the increasing number of inquests that they are being asked to provide evidence to), in order for politicians to lay the blame somewhere else for their complicity in destroying a once Gold-Standard Public Service.
We are grateful to shadow Labour minister Laura Pidcock for raising this specific issue at May’s Justice Questions, telling MPs that “Napo has called for the scapegoating of probation officers to end, especially after the reviewing of cases that have already been covered by a review,” and asking: “Does the Minister agree that the probation service should take responsibility for structural failures leading to serious further offences, rather than hanging its workers out to dry?”
In response, Minister Robert Buckland paid tribute to probation officers, saying: “They are dedicated public servants who use their professional judgment and skill to help assess risk, which is an onerous task. I do not approve of scapegoating. I expect the service to support probation officers who are under pressure, but for cases where there needs to be an investigation, due process then has to take place.”
Our vision for the future
In our current negotiations with Ministers and senior MoJ and HMPPS leaders, Napo has made it clear to that we have a number of ‘red lines’, including:
- The restoration of all probation work back into public control and ownership
- The need to ensure that the earlier and already scheduled transfer of offender management work to the NPS in Wales becomes the benchmark for the process to follow in England
- All probation staff to be placed on NPS pay, terms and conditions in advance of the move to transfer offender management work and the letting of any new contracts to so-called Innovation Partners and sub-contractors who would form part of a Dynamic Framework.
- Continuity of employment for the appx 8,000 CRC staff transferring into the NPS
Napo have four key demands for the future of Probation:
Fully integrated service provision
In all of the many criticisms of TR the split in the service between the NPS and CRCs has been universally acknowledged as a cause of poor service provision, increased bureaucracy, duplication of work and communication issues. Napo want a fully integrated and unified service, with all core functions - including unpaid work and interventions delivered from a single organisation. This does not preclude the involvement of specialist provision by the third sector in a partnership arrangement but ensures that the management and delivery of core services is carried out in a co-ordinated manner.
Keeping probation in the public sector and never for profit, but out of the civil service
Our members agree that nobody should profit from crime and equally no one should profit from the delivery of Justice as a result of those crimes. The delivery of Probation Services belongs in the public sector but the move to the Civil Service as a result of TR has meant that the National Probation Service is now overly bureaucratic and follows a top down “command and control” culture. This means that the responsivity to local priorities that was once a key feature of Probation has been lost and innovation is reserved to those promoted to senior positions rather than open to all. Probation Officers are, as part of their training, encouraged to think critically about the work that they are doing and the systems in which they are doing it. This is almost impossible from within the Civil Service where criticism of the establishment is forbidden.
For many years Probation has struggled for recognition and focus against the forced partnership with the Prison Service. Although we recognise the advantages of working closely with our colleagues in the Prison Service we are not an adjunct to that service and while there are many areas where our work and ways of working align, there are also many areas where they do not. Successive Governments have failed to understand this reality making it nigh on impossible for the Probation Service to focus on developing its own culture and values.
Our demand is for Probation Services to exist outside of the Civil Service but in the public sector, as a non-departmental government body( in the same way as organisations like CAFCASS and many others). This would allow for a degree of consistency through a national structure but would enable the development of more effective probation practices.
A service built on evidence based practice
There is a wealth of evidence about how to support people to desist from offending. Research into desistance and risk assessment and management is abundant, yet little of this knowledge is being employed in redesigning Probation Services. Much of the pressure that staff leaving the service describe is about being asked to work in ways which they feel do not represent good practice and which in some cases are dangerous. There is no sign of these lessons being learned. In addition there have been attempts to silence those who raise concerns about practice and the evidence of a need for change has been suppressed, for example in the case of the report exposing serious problems about Sex Offender Treatment Programmes in prisons.
At the same time as the feted reintegration of offender management work following TR, the other big project is the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) project. OMiC builds in multiple changes of Offender Manager despite the fact that such changes were criticised so much in the TR model that it caused a significant change of policy and hastened the move to reintegration.
All probation practice should be based on evidence, and changes should be made to ways of working based on this and not the convenience of the organisation or the needs of a private contract.
Rooting Probation in the local community and partnering with local specialist providers
Probation is about people; and people exist in communities. The link to the community is vital and must be prioritised. What works in one village, town or city might not work elsewhere. There must be a facility to respond to local needs and priorities and to shape service delivery to suit. Frontline practitioners must be empowered to work in a way that meets the needs of both their client and their community rather than to a centralised agenda.
There are many third sector providers working in response to local needs that might be excellent future partners for the delivery of probation services, either as a contractor or in other arrangements. Sadly, many of these very local services were simply frozen out of the system due to TR but where they exist they should be involved in an appropriate way. Large contracts are not the way to deliver such innovative and responsive partnerships; as smaller third-sector organisations cannot compete with large companies who are better able to offer cash guarantees and present artificially low bids. There should never be a separation between probation services and the support mechanisms that exist, but working together in a joined up way is often impossible when there is no local control or accountability over the system.
Suggested actions by Parliamentarians
Supportive MPs and Peers are encouraged to consider asking one of the following questions when opportunities arise.
- Privatising probation has proved to be a costly and dangerous failure, so why are ministers still insisting on keeping the profit motive at the heart of core probation services? Does the Minister agree that probation officers currently working at the failed private probation companies should be placed on public-sector pay, terms and conditions in advance of transferring to the National Probation Service?
- What assurances can the Minister give to this House that probation officers will not be scapegoated for serious further offences where they have not received the necessary support from senior management or have suffered from systemic operational failures not of their making?
- Does the Minister agree that the failure of TR (as evidenced by numerous HMI Probation reports, the Justice Committee and NAO), along with the massive amount of additional taxpayer’s money used to shore up failing CRC contracts now warrants a Public Enquiry?
Katie Lomas National Chair
I am pleased to set out the Probation Institute’s Business Plan for 2019/20.
ReplyDeleteThe Plan records the significant achievements of the Institute in 2018/19 but also the substantial challenge ahead in further developing the Institute as a sustainable and influential body. The Probation Institute aims to support, influence and lead individuals in the overall professional development of practitioners, managers and leaders working in probation, rehabilitation and resettlement services.
We offer a consistent voice on a wide range of professional issues and development, building on our long-established knowledge, skills and experience of these services. We are an independent body that represents the profession as a whole.
The objectives we have set ourselves for the coming year are set out in respect of Visibility, the Probation Register and Practitioner Regulation, Standards, Professional Development, the Centre for Excellence, Partnership, Stakeholders and Resources, including membership growth.
I look forward to engaging with current and new members in delivering the plan.
Nick Smart
Vice Chair Probation Institute
OK Nick, let's see it then?
Delete1.2 Aims for 2019/20
DeleteTo represent and support the professional interests of the majority of practitioners in the probation, rehabilitation and resettlement services in public, private and voluntary organisations
To offer professional support to all organisations going through major changes as a result of the MOJ restructure of Probation
To develop the Continuous Professional Development Offer for practitioners; identifying gaps in knowledge and helping to meet these
To develop a model which brings evidence based research into policy and accessible learning for practitioners
To continue to expand the Institute’s profile including opportunities for media engagement on justice issues
To extend the reach of our Conferences and the Probation Quarterly
To demonstrate our unique ability to become the Regulatory Body for Probation Services and Providers
Didn't the institute support the last fiasco the need to get lost oh no they are already nick daft.
DeleteRe Parliamentry crisis, Boris has just lost his majority as Phillip Lee (formally MoJ) has defected to Lib dems.
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/DrPhillipLeeMP/status/1168898191103864832
https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-london-49568320?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15675261217864&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
ReplyDeletehttps://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2019/09/03/child-killer-says-probation-service-should-have-done-more-to-safeguard-victims/
"The former Conservative leadership candidate Rory Stewart – who was among 21 Tory MPs who had the whip removed last night after voting against the government – has revealed he was dumped from the party by text." The Guardian
ReplyDeleteParliament may be in uncharted territory, but same old same old for probation. Strong leadership but pretty f***ed up nonetheless.
ReplyDeletehttps://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-49570407?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15675908404036&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
'Getafix
The probation service in the South East and East of England has been struggling with "high workloads and staff shortages", inspectors have said.
DeleteThe regional division has been given an overall rating of "requires improvement" following routine checks.
HM Inspectorate of Probation said the pressures the service faced presented a "major risk to service delivery".
The National Probation Service (NPS) said: "There are clearly areas we need to address, including staffing levels."
The NPS is responsible for supervising high-risk offenders released into the community.
The South East & Eastern division oversees more than 16,000 individuals in Northamptonshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Surrey.
'Clear strengths'
During fieldwork in May and June, inspectors looked at 10 aspects of its work, rating half as good and half as requiring improvement.
The report said "workloads were too high", with an average of 43 cases per officer, compared to 39 nationally.
This was the highest of all the probation divisions and a "major risk to service delivery", it added.
Chief inspector of probation Justin Russell said: "The division has some clear strengths, especially around leadership, but also shows shortfalls in key areas, in particular high workloads and significant staff shortages.
"There were 102 vacancies for probation officers at the time of our inspection - a 16% gap in expected staffing levels."
Inspectors found good performance in areas, such as the approach to mental health issues, the assessment and planning of cases, and statutory work with victims.
But Mr Russell said there were "ongoing national problems" with the management of facilities by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).
Inspectors found delays in carrying out repairs and staff had personal alarms that did not work properly.
"The Ministry of Justice must take more responsibility for ensuring safe and secure premises," Mr Russell said.
The MoJ said it was "providing a bespoke programme to resolve urgent works" across its premises.
Amy Rees, director general for probation, added: "We are training over 120 new probation officers in this region and will continue working tirelessly to boost our numbers."
One of the reasons mooted for the understaffing and retention of staff is the regions close proximity to London. I doubt that is the only reason, but I think that may be true for many public services that operate within a close proximity to London.
DeleteLondon and surrounding regions have become so expensive that even doctors and lawyers have difficulties, so staffing services like probation, social services, prisons, nurses etc is becoming increasingly more difficult.
London is fast becoming an unserviceable city, and the surrounding regions can only follow suit.
'Getafix
Interserve staff have also been struggling with staff shortages and high caseloads but that is part of their 'model'. Any Interserve managers want to deny this publically and publish staff caseloads - no thought not because I am 100% correct. Exploitation!!
Delete21 Tory MPs might now have some understanding of the impact of the TR debacle upon probation staff, i.e. a group of liars without conscience & their do-anything lickspittles impose catastrophic change that is mostly unwanted & doomed to inevitable failure, then they throw overboard all those unprepared to 'play ball'.
ReplyDeleteHow's it feel, Rory?
Ok its gone a bit quiet on here ladies and gentlemen.
ReplyDeleteAny good news stories in Probation world?
I received a bunch of flowers today as a thank you from one of my long term clients. Any other nice gestures shown today?
Case loads in S Yorkshire are up to 43, yet we are informed that we are not understaffed. It's just not good enough. They keep saying all will be levelled out following OMIC. Meantime just carry on. Not good enough. Staff are not being replaced and sickness levels continue to rise.
ReplyDeleteThe NAPO website is reporting that, ‘additional funding to support the ongoing reform of the probation system, which will help reduce reoffending and improve the quality of post-custody supervision.’
ReplyDeleteThe focus appears to have changed without anybody telling our glorious leaders who are busily trying to scrape together sufficient resources to put into prisons under OMiC.
At the current time, in our office we are understaffed and have been for ages. Full time POs currently hold anywhere from 45 to 60 cases (SWSC) and part time are around 30. NPS need to stop focusing on recruitment and focus on the retention of experienced staff. Make staff feel valued! We have lost hugely experienced and talented staff since TR. Those are the staff which make the service effective and are crucial to teaching and guiding the new POs coming through via PQUIP. It is such a complex job and takes years to get a holistic competence of doing the job well because every case is so different and brings it own challenges. Oasys aqa guidance now makes assessments even longer to complete. It doesn't matter how amazing your OASYS is if you haven't got the time to actually implement what you are writing about. Let's get the balance back.
ReplyDeleteSome shocking stats in today's Telegraph.
ReplyDeleteIf so many people are being released homeless and fed into the probation service on supervision, the I think it shows that the government have no real concern for prison leavers, and an utter contempt for any agency involved are charged with rehabilitation. How can people being released from custody to sleep in High Street doorways be appropriately supervised?
https://www-telegraph-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/08/public-safety-risk-record-number-prisoners-released-sleep-streets/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15680085093169&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2F2019%2F09%2F08%2Fpublic-safety-risk-record-number-prisoners-released-sleep-streets%2F
'Getafix