Napo AGM Motions 2022

It's that time of year when Napo members have the chance to ballot on what they feel are the priorities for debate at the forthcoming AGM in Eastbourne. Members have until 29th September to vote.  As usual, I've picked out what particularly caught my eye, but of course what's possibly of much greater interest is what's missing. 

The traditional long lead times and bureaucratic machinations that produce the motions for AGM are seemingly not able to respond to recent developments such as the Parole changes or even the existential threat to probation itself from the 'One HMPPS' plan and prison service takeover. Motion 13 from Napo Cymru comes closest and there is always the possibility of an Emergency Motion seeing the light of day. But the cynical or even just bemused might be forgiven for wondering if all the hot air and effort amounts to much, especially if reminded of this motion, carried at Cardiff in 2019:-

CAMPAIGNING COMMITTEE MOTION: The Future of the Probation Service

It was proposed by Chris Hignett and seconded by Mike Guilfoyle, that:-

“Having considered the government's proposals for a future probation service, as set out in "The proposed future model of probation - a draft operating blue print" this Conference calls upon Napo’s Campaigning Committee to make clear that:

• it believes the future service, while providing national coverage, should cease to be either a part of the Civil Service or the Prison Service and should seek alternative arrangements for its governance based on shared responsibility between local authorities and the Ministry of Justice;
• it rejects the distinction between "offender management" and "interventions" as designed to promote a market for services that ought to be united and delivered as one, free of market interference;
• it discards the phrases " protecting the public" and "preventing reoffending", for which the evidence is slender, in favour of "advise, assist and befriend" which should seek to enable desistance from offending;
• insists the term Probation Court staff designated to Court are appropriately trained to oversee the delivery of the court's supervisory orders and to otherwise assist in the fair delivery of justice.”

As the Chair of London Branch dryly observed last year in their valedictory speech, "I am told that it is one of Napo’s aims to extract the Probation Service from the Civil Service however I hear very little about any effective action being taken to achieve this". Apart from a 'withering' letter sent to Jim Barton last month, (I wonder if it got a reply?) it would seem reasonable to echo this view and there's no evidence to support this assertion at the end:-  "Napo will vigorously campaign in and outside of Parliament to achieve the aims outlined above." Just the usual bluster?

Anyway, here's what particularly caught my eye:-

2. Replace the Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR) 

This conference supports the need to revoke the Rehabilitation Activities Requirement ( RAR) currently part of a Community/ Suspended Sentence Order and reinstate the two requirements which it replaced in 2015: the Supervision Requirement and the Activity Requirement. Such a step would necessitate legislative change. In light of the unification of the probation service , we believe such an important legislative change would be opportune and once again enhance the supervisory role of the case manager which is central to effective probation practice. Currently many Sentencers view the RAR as bewilderingly vague, particularly on levels of contact and content of activities, and retain concerns that this requirement is being unevenly implemented and enforced, resulting in a loss of judicial confidence. 

We therefore call upon Campaigning and Professional Networks to: 

• campaign for this legislative change, by liaising with the Magistrates Association, the judiciary and the MoJ, 
• draft an action plan of how this might be supported by practitioners and enacted in a timely manner. 

Supervision had been the foundation of probation practice for more than a century. Now is the time to act to restore its evidence based centrality in a reunified service whilst ensuring it is properly resourced and enabled. 

Proposer: Mike Guilfoyle (London Branch) 

Seconder: Chris Hignett (London Branch)

6. Time for a reality check on staffing and work loads 

This AGM is concerned at the Probation Service’s failure to retain and recruit staff who reflect the community we work in. It is time to assess how increasing workloads with other factors have led to a depletion of staff, including those seeking to leave through early retirement and those struggling to work within the around supporting a shrinking frontline work force or attract staff able and willing to see through PQiP and stay. 

This AGM instructs the Officers and Officials to investigate the reality behind this situation and seek to work with HMPPS on formulating a realistic solution. 

That it commissions a joint survey to establish the age profile of the workforce and seek other answers about the morale and other factors that influence the resilience of staff. One that seeks answers about how valued they view their role and what would encourage them to remain. 

It is time to explode some myths including how individuals consider their contribution accords with their grade, gender, sexuality, and racial identity. That this leads to a service where staff regardless of age or length of service feel welcome and valued. 

Proposer: Keith Stokeld, Staffordshire West Midlands Branch 

Seconder: Ralph Coldrick, Staffordshire West Midlands Branch

10. Stop the Rot: Professionalism: (Probation) 

This AGM notes yet another professional skill/practice has been removed from probation officer roles with the recent changes to the Parole and Review of Re-release processes. 

This AGM believes that changes to probation officer roles and responsibilities such as those brought by OMIC, and the move to more ‘on the day’ reports by PSOs are being done by the ‘back door’ to de-skill and downgrade our roles and provide ‘justification’ for poor pay. 

This AGM further believes we need to fight for our professional integrity and our professional status before we lose it completely and calls on national Napo to: 

• work with other Criminal Justice partners and unions to maintain our professional standards in Courts, 
• fight the changes to the Parole process and fight to reinstate our ability to make recommendations, 
• support staff involved in open parole hearings, 
• continue to fight OMIC especially the line management of probation staff by prisons, 
• campaign to take us out of the Civil Service in order to regain our independent professional status. 

Proposer: London Branch

12. Support for the General Secretary 

This conference recognises the great contribution that our General Secretary makes to promoting our union and defending our members. His strengths in negotiation and effective communication are recognised. This conference is of the view that the General Secretary should focus on his strengths and not spend time completing administrative tasks. We therefore call on the Officers’ group to ensure that the General Secretary has access to sufficient administrative support to allow him to concentrate on his strengths. 

Proposer: Family Court Section

13. HMPPS Probation Model Irredeemably Flawed 

The consistently poor HMIP inspection reports tell a sorry tale, but the Inspector falls short in failing to say what everybody knows: that the HMPPS governed Probation Service is a model that is “Irredeemably flawed”. It is, after all, one half of the post-TR model that was assessed by the then chief inspector as irredeemably flawed. 

Napo will redouble our demands for Probation to be taken out of the civil service, and unshackled from the Prison Service. Napo members will write to their MPs making this position clear. The NEC will draft a suggested briefing note and letter, and Napo will engage in a press and communications exercise, responding to each of the inevitable future “poor” and “needs improvement” inspection report making this position clear. 

Proposer: Napo Cymru

23. Initial Induction Appointment Targets 

In July 2022 we were informed that the target for initial induction appointments has moved back from 10 days to 5 days. This is at a time when offices are not always fully staffed, and it applies to full and part-time staff alike. 

The inflexibility of the target takes no account of the fact there is very little time to get a letter to the person on probation once sentenced, if they have not been given an appointment at court. It takes no account of the fact that not all people on probation have phones so cannot be texted, nor does it take account of the fact that many officers work part-time. Crucially, the imposition of such a target without flexibility does little to help the morale of workers who are already overworked and underpaid. 

We therefore ask that Napo work with our employer to find a way to engage people on probation as early as possible in their sentence in a flexible way Give us the means to achieve initial induction appointment targets…..better still, scrap the target altogether! 

Proposer: South Yorkshire Branch

24. Qualified then Quit 

The mass recruitment of trainee probation practitioners has been promised to provide a solution for the rapidly increasing workloads and staff shortages. Napo believes that the focus should be on the more important staff retention problem. It is almost too common to hear about newly qualified practitioners searching for other jobs and handing in their notice, only weeks or months after qualifying. The protection and support promised for the first year of their career is grossly overlooked. Many are handed the entire caseloads of retiring practitioners and/or have to work with complexities they have little experience with. Most are left to do all this in an unfamiliar office and without the guidance of a mentor. 

This AGM asks that this be taken up as an issue to protect our newly qualified staff. It asks that policy around protected caseloads and support are reviewed, especially considering what is in place to safeguard new practitioners working in amber and red offices. 

Proposer: The Mercia Branch

25. Rethinking the PQiP 

Napo recognises that a significant proportion of trainee probation practitioners have experienced less than adequate support despite what was advertised when they committed to the programme. PQiPs in some PDUs, especially those in amber or red, outweigh the number of qualified practitioners which often means that they have no allocated mentors to guide and support them. This situation is increasingly worrying in many ways. Trainees are not getting the necessary practical learning that a mentor could provide. They are also much more likely to experience burn-out, feelings of isolation and hopelessness. The academic component of the training is predominantly self-directed studying, despite it being advertised as a taught course. Without mentorships to feel confident in developing their practice, and with very little academic teaching, these trainees are still expected to produce work of the highest practice standard. 

This programme may not be fit for purpose anymore and requires re-structuring in order to offer all PQiPs the same opportunities for learning. This AGM asks that we see a review of the PQiP 15- and 21-month pathways, with special attention paid to how the ever increasing workloads impact on our trainees’ professional development and wellbeing. 

Proposer: The Mercia Branch

26. Value your Experienced Staff 

Probation has a problem. A dire shortage of experienced practitioners, particularly fully qualified Probation Officers, many of whom are retiring early. Napo demands that the employer takes concrete steps to improve the retention of its most experienced staff, for example: 

• survey all staff over 50 years of age to establish their wants and needs in the workplace, 
• enable a sessional staff bank where retired practitioners could be hired flexibly and locally. 

Proposer: Napo Cymru

28. Programmes: Target Operating Model; Impact on Staff 

This AGM notes that consultation on the target operating model for programmes is drawing to a close. However, we also note that the proposals could potentially have a negative impact on current programme staff, in particular those that work in the Divisional Sex Offender Units as well as the wider business. The proposals may well lead to all programme staff being put on to Band 3 irrelevant of whether or not they have a probation qualification, extensive experience or deliver programmes for those that commit sexual offences. This AGM also notes that this could lead to large numbers of staff either being redeployed in the service or leaving altogether despite having an enormous amount of experience in this very specialist work and having dedicated many years to this area of business. It also de-professionalises the work programme staff do, could potentially undermine public protection and impact on the wider business. 

We therefore call on Officers, Officials and Professional & Training Network to do the following: 

• raise awareness amongst members of the wider impact and encourage involvement at engagement events and workshops, 
• raise our professional concerns with the programmes teams nationally. 

Proposer: Carole Doherty 

Seconder: Ben Cockburn 

On behalf of the Probation and Training Network

29. Next Generation of Programmes 

AGM notes with dismay the proposal that probation will disband the majority of the suite of programmes delivered and move to a one size fits all approach. This will see one programme delivered for all clients in mixed cohorts both in prison and the community. We note that this is being done without any evidence being provided to Napo regarding the effectiveness of this approach. We also note that little or no thought is being given to the risks posed to both clients and staff from such a delivery model. We are deeply concerned that alongside the proposed operating model this is a further de-professionalisation of probation and undermines and under values the hard work our members in programmes do to reduce and manage risk. Such a massive change to how we work is being rushed through due to poor planning on the part of the employer. 

This motion therefore calls for Napo to: 

• hold regular engagement events with members affected, 
• remind the employer we are an evidenced led organisation and demand sight of all evidence this model is based on, 
• if required, reject this proposal in its entirety. 

Proposer: Carole Doherty 

Seconder: Ben Cockburn 

On behalf of the Probation and Training Network