Latest From Napo 232

Here we have selected quotes from the Napo mailout sent to all members yesterday:-

TRADE UNIONS OPPOSE REFORM OF PROGRAMMES DELIVERY

Our members will be aware that the joint Probation Service trade unions (TUs) have now been involved in negotiations about the future of offending behaviour programme delivery for almost a year. Despite our best efforts, we are no closer to agreement with the employer’s proposals.

We are aware that the employer has stated that there have been over 30 hours of consultation on the subject, although the TUs would question how meaningful this was. We have continued to emphasise our concerns over how the proposals will negatively impact the management of the risk of harm to the public, in addition to looking after the interests of our members. Below is an update on the issues the TUs have raised with the employer.

WHY A SINGLE FACILITATOR JOB DESCRIPTION WILL BE BAD NEWS

The aim of the employer is to replace all current facilitator job descriptions (JD) at band 3 and band 4 with one JD which may end up being evaluated at pay band 3. The TUs believe that the JD should differ between general offending behaviour programmes (GOBP) staff, such as those who deliver TSP, and those who deliver work with men who commit sexual offences (MCSO) and domestic abuse (DA).

Consultancy, delivery of non-accredited one-to-one work, guidance to sentence management and provision of Learning and Development support to Sentence Management staff will differ with risk levels and complexity. Those subject to conditions to complete a general Offender Behaviour Programme (OBP) are not likely to require significant consultancy, guidance or Learning and Development support

The TUs feel that the creation of two facilitator roles at Band 3 and Band 4 better represents the work of our members. Work with more complex and high-risk groups (DA and MCSO) justifies differing salary bands to other types of Offending Behaviour Programme (OBP) facilitator staff.

DAMAGING TO CAREER PROGRESSION

Under the current proposals, the only career development pathway for facilitators will be to leave facilitation. Our proposals for Band 3 and Band 4 facilitator roles would offer greater flexibility in terms of career progression that would support remaining in facilitation.

The TUs have continued to emphasise the need for the Probation Service to develop a career progression model whereby people new into the service deliver structured interventions and TSP, allowing time to develop their knowledge, experience and skill before they progress to deliver Building Better Relationships (BBR) and programmes for those convicted of sexual offences, if they choose to do so.

MORE INFORMATION NEEDED

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:

• The justification for a single facilitator job description
• The pay band at which a single facilitator role will be paid? If the outcome of the job evaluation process puts the role at Band 3, our pay band 4 members face losing up to £11,000 per annum, if they want to continue to deliver programmes. This includes some former CRC facilitators.
• The arrangements for Band 4 members currently working in Interventions to return to sentence management. These members may have been out of sentence management for many years. As a minimum, these members, would require a full package of training and a gradual acquisition of a full case load.
• Whether non-qualified Band 4 facilitators who choose to leave Interventions would be offered pay protection if they were to return to a Band 3 PSO role.
• The consequences for new staff of failing Core Skills or programme specific training

DEDICATED SEX OFFENDER UNITS (DSOU) TO BE DISBANDED

Under the current proposals the employer intends for all facilitators to deliver all accredited programmes and structured interventions. This will result in existing DSOUs being disbanded, resulting in the loss of the accumulated expertise and knowledge held by our members in these teams and placing the public at greater risk of serious harm.

The TUs have been clear that keeping these teams would not only mean keeping current expertise in work with men who commit sexual offences but also allow for the development of expertise and knowledge in work with men who commit DA offences and engage in sexually abusive behaviour.

This would provide an opportunity to enhance our work with this group to improve risk management and public safety. The TUs continue to be clear that DSOUs should be expanded to incorporate those most experienced facilitators in the delivery of domestic abuse programmes to provide the same level of consultancy and support to sentence management and stakeholders that members in existing DSOUs provide.

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:

• What will be asked of members, who, for whatever reason, don’t wish to work with those who commit domestic abuse offences or are convicted of sexual offences?
• What will be asked of members who deliver structured interventions and don’t wish to deliver accredited programmes?

TREATMENT MANAGERS & PROGRAMME MANAGERS

Under the employer’s proposals, the TUs believe it is unlikely that Treatment Managers will have the capacity to provide current levels of professional support and guidance to probation practitioners and relevant stakeholders. This would be an increased risk at a time when the Probation Service has a large and increasing number of inexperienced probation practitioners and managers. It is clear that there are currently no substantive plans in place to ensure that competent clinical advice or support to probation practitioners or stake holders is in place.

The TUs are concerned that Treatment Managers may be expected to oversee programmes of which they have no experience rather than delivering twice before taking up the role. The TUs have pointed out that this would clearly result in negative consequences for the standard of programme delivery and lead to a reduction in the quality of risk management, putting the public at increased risk of harm.

The TUs continue to press the employer for further information about:

• The employer’s lack of response to issues raised around the potential consequences of staff inexperience and its implication for risk management, in the face of recent SFO reports and HMIP inspections.

COST!

The plans for Interventions will result in significant cost, in addition to the costs of developing a new programme. The TUs believe this money could be better invested in increasing facilitator numbers for existing programmes.

A SINGLE ACCREDITED OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAMME?

The employer’s current plans are to replace all current accredited programmes with a single programme for all offenders. The information so far provided by the employer does not, in the TUs’ opinion, justify the plans put forward and indicates no significant work on a new programme has yet taken place.

An evaluation of a single programme approach used in Canada which has been seen by the TUs did not yield positive results. The TUs continue to have significant concerns in relation to:

• The future of the Domestic Abuse Safety Officer role should BBR be replaced with a single programme
• How Programme Managers will ensure the safety of our members and people on probation if DA perpetrators and MCSO are included in the same group
• How Programme Managers will be able to ensure there are no victims of DA or sexual offences in groups
• How it will be possible to facilitate and ensure the engagement of group members in large groups
• How sexual deviance will be tackled as part of a single OBP, as this is one of the biggest risk indicators

WHAT NEXT?

The unions are opposed to the HMPPS proposals for Programmes because we believe that they will reduce public protection at a time when tackling violence against women and girls is finally getting the attention and resources it deserves in other government departments. HMPPS is trying to force generic job descriptions onto complex work areas in order to save money in much the same way as the NPS did at the time of E3. It did not work then, and it will not work now.

So, we will continue to campaign against these dangerous changes both within and outside HMPPS.

--oo00oo--

Excerpts from Napo's formal response to Parole changes

The following are excerpts from Napo’s formal initial response as a trade union, dated the 14th of July, to the information we were provided with at that time by HMPPS on the changes made by the Secretary of State for Justice to the parole process.

“It’s outrageous that this fundamental change was introduced without any meaningful consultation or notice in advance of the Statutory Instrument…

…It’s clear that no current practitioners or relevant stakeholders have been consulted in advance on what is in effect a dangerously inept political ‘power grab’. This demonstrates a complete failure to comprehend the severe consequences of the huge mistake being made by doing so…

…Our concern is that this is a decision which is wholly politically motivated, made in response to a tiny proportion of individual cases which have received significant national publicity. Unfortunately, experience tells us that this never makes for considered or effective decision making in the criminal justice system…

…In thousands of instances every year no recommendation of any sort will be made to the Parole Board, with experienced, trusted experts such as Probation staff being actively prohibited from doing so by the Secretary of State. This significantly increases the risk to the public, and will damage their confidence in the criminal justice system…

…So far there has been no consultation with the recognised experts in this area of practice – the staff currently writing these reports and attending Oral Hearings. In fact, the Secretary of State has – potentially deliberately – avoided any such process of engagement. How can the recognised trade unions and their members have any confidence that this guidance will be fit for purpose, especially given the mass of contradictions and flaws inherent in this plan and the extremely limited time available for its production?...”

We’ve taken the unusual step of including these excerpts in this communication following this week’s judgement of the High Court on cases related to the changes imposed by the Secretary of State for Justice in July 2022 – www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Bailey-and-Morris-judgment.pdf

To be in the position of having received such a damning indictment on their behaviour and judgement, has resulted in HMPPS carrying out the Minister’s stated aims in a manner that was described in the judgement as “unlawful” in multiple respects.

While we are aware of the possibility the Secretary of State may appeal this judgement – and given lack of any apparent judgement and sense of decency this remains entirely likely – it is difficult to see how they can recover from abject defeat in Court.

As detailed in previous communications over the months since these changes were announced Napo has consistently taken the fight to HMPPS on behalf of its members on this matter at every opportunity possible in the months since these changes were announced. We have made repeated representations about the dire effects that these changes would clearly cause, both for our members and the wider criminal justice system, then unceasingly brought these to the employer’s attention as often as we were able to after their implementation. In addition to this we have worked with others interested parties – such as in the Houses of Parliament, charitable organisations involved or the legal representatives of the individuals party to the Court case above – to attempt to overturn these changes at the earliest opportunity. In doing this we are grateful to the members who have shared their experiences and concerns with us to enable Napo to better represent all our members and to defend the importance of our professional judgement.

Napo believe this stands as the most recent example to be added to the increasingly long list of instances when HMPPS should have listened to its workers, and their trade union representatives, to avoid making disastrous decisions. Members can be assured we will cite this in the future in our contacts with HMPPS in relation to our reasoned, critical opposition to, for example, the proposed changes to programmes as well as ‘One HMPPS’.