Sunday, 28 May 2023

Latest From Napo 237

Here we have selected highlights from the Napo mailout to members on Friday:-  

Programmes and interventions

Many of our members working in Programmes and Interventions will have taken the opportunity to join one of the regular consultative meetings organised by Carole Doherty (National Vice-Chair) and Tania Bassett (National Official) over recent months. Here we have covered the position relating to the plans for the Target Operating Model and delivery of the ‘Next Generation.

In addition to the comprehensive updates that have been made available at these events, your National Executive Committee (NEC) members and elected National Officer Group, receive comprehensive reports of progress on our engagement with senior management. In addition we have also issued regular mail outs to our members, but if you know of a colleague who has not received these please ask them to contact: membership@napo.org.uk to confirm their preferred e-mail address, or to notify us of any change in their personal details.

Background to the current position

As you would expect, the Probation Unions (Napo, UNISON and GMB) take every opportunity to regularly relay the anger and frustration that has been made clear by our respective members directly to senior management. This is via a series of scheduled meetings with the Reducing Reoffending Directorate, but also during our fortnightly engagement with the Chief Probation Officer Kim Thornden-Edwards or HMPPS Executive Directors Amy Rees and Phil Copple.

This update brings you up to speed with the latest position in what has undoubtedly become a difficult and protracted issue; one that is causing massive uncertainty to the workforce, but which also has serious implications for public protection if the plans come to fruition.

Some months ago, Napo were alerted to a number of high-level documents which the employer had mistakenly published on the Intranet. These revealed plans to decimate the Divisional Sex Offender Units and downgrade the work of Facilitators delivering Programmes to Band 3.

Following the understandable level of anger and mistrust that this generated across all three unions, the consultation was paused. Napo, alongside Unison and GMB made it clear that there had been a complete breakdown in trust with the employer and their intentions, and we demanded written assurances before any further discussions could be held. This process took about 2 months with the unions responding to the employer’s submissions during this time. As a result of this, the consultation process has changed and there has also been a change on the employer’s side in who attends these talks.

Our current engagement strategy

Essentially, the unions have two choices before us. One is canvassing members for hard hitting industrial action over a prolonged period to try and shock the Government into changing these plans, but feedback from members so far indicates that we are not yet at this stage.

The second, is to maintain our engagement for as long as we can before entering a National Dispute under the Probation Joint National Council (JNC).

We are now at the stage where we are close to concluding formal consultation over the stated plans on which we regularly brief our political contacts. Once consultation is concluded we will enter into formal negotiations as the proposed changes will clearly impact on terms and conditions if they are enacted.

In addition, Napo has provided regular briefings to the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, and the General Secretary has personally briefed Sir Bob Neil, the Chair of the Justice Select Committee on these seriously dangerous proposals. The Probation Unions will also be invited to give formal evidence to the Justice Committee over the summer, and as you would expect, this will cover a range of issues including the stated direction of travel on Programmes and Interventions which Carole and Tania continue to challenge on a daily basis. As well as this work, we are in regular contact with Labour’s Front Bench Team as they start to build their criminal justice policies for their general election manifesto. If Labour are elected to government, we already know that they will ditch these proposals.

Understandably, some members are asking why we continue to engage on these proposals, but the view of the Officer Group is that it would be a mistake to withdraw from the talks. Firstly, it would allow senior management a clear playing field when we have on numerous occasions, been able to prevent communications being issued or events taking place. Additionally, it would enable management to push through the Job Evaluation exercise on the role of Band 3 and 4 practitioners without our involvement. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

While we maintain pressure on management and make plans to step up our campaigning activities, we also have an obligation to try and find a negotiated solution to the impasse that we are facing, and Napo would be failing its members if it did not explore every possible avenue here.

The next steps

There is no room for doubt that we are in the midst of an attritional campaign, to which there are no easy solutions; but we hope that the foregoing will demonstrate that we are doing all we can in the absence of members willingness (at this moment), to support an industrial strategy. However, the consultation has made some progress and we have already achieved a number of concessions from the employer as a result of our strong position. We will continue to keep members up to date via regular briefings and mail outs to ensure that you remain clear about our position and our approach to future engagement, and that we will make sure that our members voices, views and concerns are clearly heard.

--oo00oo--

Further pause on final VLO Job Description

Members will be aware that the Victim Liaison Officer role job description is currently undergoing consultation and evaluation review as a result of changes made during E3 and changes in legislation and role requirements.

Tania Bassett National Official, Carole Doherty National Vice Chair and a number of VLO staff have met several times to discuss concerns about the JD and JDQ and agree proposed changes.

The current consultation period is due to end on 26th May. However, to allow time to revise the JD and JDQ, as a result of Trade Union and staff feedback, the consultation will be paused. Once the documentation has been amended, the consultation period will recommence for a further 28 days consultation with a provisional start date for 16th June.

Whilst the evaluation process for the VLO JD has been ongoing for a significant length of time and this has had an impact on members, it is important to take the time now to amend the documentation and engage in further consultation to ensure the process is thorough and fair. We believe that we have made really good progress and the employers side has listened to trade unions and VLO members and the JD and JDQ which be much improved as a result of extending this process by another month.

63 comments:

  1. What. Talk about non issues I don't think Napo have any role now. Also vlo pay been going on for years now and the issue was Napo led failure to ensure merger was on protected and leveled up under the agreement. Napo appalling as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is just a treat for you Jim, think you deserve one. Hope the link works!

    #OnThisDay 1961:  "Why should we live and die by shipbuilding only?"
    Sunderland Oak, a beautiful documentary by Philip Donnellan, examined the hopes and fears of men at the Bartram & Sons shipyard.
    https://fb.watch/kOM_uQDOrn/


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 09:10 Thanks very much indeed - right up my street and would be good to find the whole film.

      Delete
    2. https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2b9f0e3b0e

      The Irishmen (1965), a bitter account of the marginal status of the community of male Irish migrants responsible for rebuilding much of Britain’s post-war infrastructure, was never televised...

      And his final magnum opus, Gone for a Soldier (tx. 9/3/1980), which was broadcast, attracted a torrent of media criticism as a result. It was a sweeping 105-minute evocation of over 150 years of army history, immensely sympathetic to the military’s ordinary recruits, but damning about the military as an institution and about British colonialism.

      The Colony (tx. 16/6/1964), one of the most intelligent documentary responses to West Indian immigration yet filmed; and Where Do We Go from Here? (tx. 1/4/1969), a still relevant indictment of the treatment of travelling communities. But Donnellan’s most lasting documentaries were often those in which the ideology was submerged in his treatment of a non-political subject, as in his debut Joe the Chainsmith (tx. 7/11/1958) and later studies of individuals, whether renowned figures or ordinary people; and several portraits of place (such as The White Country, tx. 10/6/1960; Coventry Kids, tx. 15/11/1960; Sunderland Oak, tx. 19/19/1961; and The Long Journey, 1963).

      Delete
  3. Why are NSD Probation Officers paid at Band 5 when other Probation Officers are paid at Band 4 and what is Napo doing about that? https://justicejobs.tal.net/vx/mobile-0/appcentre-1/brand-13/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/3/opp/71064-71064-National-Security-Division-Specialist-Probation-Practitioner-NW-GM/en-GB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely spot on, for a service that bangs in about equality, time to show it and re band, band fours

      Delete
    2. There is more responsibility with the NSD roles. Obvious question is why was this role reviewed before long standing one’s like VLOs and interventions. Isn’t NSD new??

      Delete
    3. There is not more responsibility. A probation officer role is a probation officer role. Custody, community, court, NSD, the pay band should be the same.

      Delete
    4. The NSD is specialist that’s why. Bitter and twisted divisive comments don’t help .

      Delete
  4. It went through JES so get over it. why don't you apply for the band 5 job since you keep going on about it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it’s unfair, simple as that

      Delete
    2. Very unfair when we all know it’s the same job with less cases. If the MoJ properly evaluated the maingrade probation officer role it’d be band 5 too. Why unions haven’t pushed for this is beyond me.

      Delete
    3. Napo have presided over the unfair for many years now. Vlos shafted programmes staff shafted working hours on workloads shafted. Pensions and redundancy shafted under the transfer scam . Yes it was a scam Napo. Not one case taken forward yest still these cooperations haven't given the GS his sought after gong yet. Not untill we are all on a fiver a year.

      Delete
    4. Is the VLO role not a band 3 PSO job? All VLO’s I’ve known are PSOs. From what I know of the job and looking at the JD I doubt job evaluation would make it band 4. If it did then POs should be band 5.

      https://justicejobs.tal.net/vx/mobile-0/appcentre-1/brand-13/candidate/so/pm/1/pl/3/opp/47402-47402-Victim-Liaison-Officer/en-GB

      Delete
    5. Je saw areas regrade vlos to 4 based on knowledge of a specialised area. Demands of the role and a generally higher level of serious cases where victims have a lot of support. It is not the same work as po and it's not a comparison of importance it's a different with measurable tasks that are rated in the scheme. Anyone blurting out it's this or that cos I'm a po and should be a millionaire is an idiot. It is a rating scheme more than a job description it includes required other assessed duties and skill. POS have their own specialised activities and qualification that I could not pretend to deliver. We all contribute to some tasks in different ways mappa meetings risk and suchlike. Napo have changed our function ina national fiddled review and down graded all the psos only while po vlos more money at band 4 . Ring any bells unequal pay for equal work. Napo have then deliberately shafted us and played around talking of pay regrade while they use it as thing to do than any real commitment. I resigned Napo over this and gave myself a pay rise of 25 a month. Napo changed the je scheme to assist the Nps not us and it won't changed we are all a low skill employee group now. Two tier pay structure for those whose face fits . All grades need to focus on getting up the scale than doing another's down this how they win .

      Delete
    6. 007? Really?

      Delete
    7. Yes really the sub panels chosen were never capable of assessing job factors they did what you think . I'm a po band 4 no one else can be a band similar if their not a po. So all psos must be 3. Daft. In the days of grades a to d all d were way above at aco rate. I know several pso titled staff who had specialised knowledge in band d paid at aco rate no fuss in those days . Too many of you looking over the fence it's jealousy not skills.

      Delete
    8. 07:01. Not entirely correct. Only some areas paid vlo’s at band 4. Some only band 4 if the vlo was po trained. Otherwise the vlo role was a pso band 3 role. Makes no difference to me what they earn but I cannot see what why a vlo would be paid at band 4.

      Delete
    9. Vlo je were assessed and graded at 4 in some areas. In others there were 3 yes sure. The scheme then looked at a number of factors which rated elements that totalled to a score grade match. It was complicated and reliable. If we did it properly. It was specially commissioned for probation by some field leaders. Napo lately dumbed it down now it's useless scheme and has no objective checking. No one is specifically trained in the programme so all get less rates for their jobs. It will now provide for po downgrades as court work disappears and core report writing and job knowledge factors reduce you wait and see. New entries will have reduced terms. Annual leave next.

      Delete
    10. 2052 is applying the best po qualification skills there. Absolutely defines a position having not made any assesment. That is why it is termed an evaluation. An examination of the description of role against criteria. Of course your best guess is clearly superior being a po. Utter foolishness and shows why we are sinking.

      Delete
  5. If you’re still paying into napo. Then I’m sorry, but the jokes on you!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Controversially I think Napo is doing a reasonable job representing individuals, and negotiating over ts and cs, job evaluations and the like. While the profession crumbles, on the other side, we have distinguished authors arguing for a philosphical identity, and evidence based professional practice. And right in the middle is a chasm. Fucking pay. Probation will not get the people, at any level of its top heavy organisation, or the recognition that it is a profession and a valuable public institution, not a task, if it offers rubbish pay.
    Napo is doing precious little to fight the ideological long term battle for Probation's identity. Its playing catchup on pay, lets hope enough people have had enough and vote for action, but they may have had enough of being poor relations in the public sector, and on the politically dodgy stage of crime and justice

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Laughed out loud your not serious.

      Delete
    2. hmpps/moj don't want probation to be an independent profession, organisation or any other form of agency. They want it to be an in-house poodle. napo don't get that. Those clamouring for pay don't get that. Accept it. There is no pay settlement coming, certainly not one that will put probation staff anywhere other than in the peforming monkey ranks of the civil service EO/HEO/SEO bands. Only the chosen few - true believers one & all - will be permitted to rise to the dizzy heights in #onehmpps.

      Delete
  7. Interesting article just popped up in the Guardian.

    https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2023/may/29/plan-scrap-specialist-sex-offender-teams-danger-to-public-safety-says-probation-union?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16853812529018&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flaw%2F2023%2Fmay%2F29%2Fplan-scrap-specialist-sex-offender-teams-danger-to-public-safety-says-probation-union

    'Getafix

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plan to scrap specialist sex offender teams ‘a danger to public safety’, says probation union

      Plans to disband specialist teams that deliver treatment courses for sex offenders have prompted fears public safety will be jeopardised.

      Under the Ministry of Justice proposals, which are being fiercely resisted internally, behaviour programmes for a wide variety of offenders would be delivered by staff who are not fully qualified probation officers.

      A probation worker from one of the at-risk sex offender units said it was a “lose-lose situation” as bespoke work would no longer be available and experienced staff would leave.

      “It will impact on the men’s ability to change, learn and succeed in the future, so the rehabilitative element of probation is being compromised,” said the officer who wished to remain anonymous.

      As part of the overhaul, officials are understood to be considering whether to scrap two of the intervention programmes for sex offenders, Horizon and iHorizon, even though a MoJ evaluation found they were leading to positive change among those who took part.

      Officials said there were no immediate plans to terminate the Horizon schemes but acknowledged they were “developing” their range of accredited offending behaviour programmes.

      The controversy is likely to fuel concerns about the effectiveness of probation work after damning reports into five murders and two sexual offences committed by two men who were under supervision.

      In January, probation inspectors highlighted a series of errors in the handling of the case of Damien Bendall, who murdered a woman and three children, including an 11-year-old girl he had raped. Bendall was given a “whole life” sentence for the attacks in Killamarsh, Derbyshire, in September 2021.

      A separate review, also published in January, found that staff had underestimated the risk of harm posed by Jordan McSweeney, before he sexually assaulted and murdered Zara Aleena in Ilford, east London, in June 2022, nine days after being let out of prison.

      The changes being consulted upon will affect specialist units across 12 probation regions in England and Wales. The units hold sessions with groups of up to 10 sex offenders released from custody or serving community sentences, aimed at improving their behaviour, relationships and ability to deal with problems.

      The work is carried out by highly skilled “band 4” probation officers who have extensive experience of dealing with rapists, paedophiles and online abusers.

      The MoJ intends to replace each team with a generic unit able to deliver courses for all types of offender, including domestic abusers, with sessions facilitated by non-fully qualified staff at a lower “band 3” grade.

      Delete
    2. A MoJ document sent to probation staff says: “We aim to align the delivery requirements of programmes to men who have committed sexual offences with those of programmes delivered to high and very high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators, the general offending programme and structured interventions.”

      Ian Lawrence, general secretary of the probation union Napo, said: “The government wants to create a ‘one size fits all’ regime. It’s an efficiency measure.

      “We have made it absolutely clear that there must be a change of direction. We think it presents a real and present danger to public safety.”

      The chief probation officer for England and Wales, Kim Thornden-Edwards, has denied the move is about cost cutting and said officials were working very closely with the unions to mitigate their concerns.

      “We are not looking at any dilution of standards,” she said in a BBC Radio 4 interview in March. “It’s about making sure that we get the widest possible skills across a group of people who are dedicated to group work.”

      A MoJ spokesperson said: “Our number-one priority is public protection and we will never compromise on safety. Our proposals would mean more staff can deliver high-quality programmes that steer offenders away from crime.”

      The MoJ added that it was bolstering training for trainee probation officers and introducing a more advanced programme for senior staff to improve the way sex offenders were managed.

      Delete
    3. Mr Lawrence dramatising bollocks. Too much TV perhaps. No one needs to be po qualified for delivering programmes . Po are not proffesionals like doctors nurses dentist teachers lawyers. POS have only a basic qualification which has no cpd and after training fall into the sea of just poorly trained others. Many pos from different social strata are almost hand picked and pushed through and up in service jobs who are completely incapable it could not happen in real professions.

      Delete
    4. Proposal: "The work is [currently] carried out by highly skilled “band 4” probation officers who have extensive experience of dealing with rapists, paedophiles and online abusers... The MoJ intends to replace each team with a generic unit able to deliver courses for all types of offender, including domestic abusers, with sessions facilitated by non-fully qualified staff at a lower “band 3” grade."

      napo: "It’s an efficiency measure... there must be a change of direction. We think it presents a real and present danger to public safety."
      (Note: nothing about role boundaries or professional standards)

      State Response: "We are not looking at any dilution of standards... we will never compromise on safety"

      Repeat of comments from an earlier post: "hmpps/moj don't want probation to be an independent profession, organisation or any other form of agency. They want it to be an in-house poodle"

      Delete
  8. It doesn't take a genius to work this out, just read these important observations on twitter by Penelope Gibbs, Transform Justice:

    https://twitter.com/PenelopeGibbs2/status/1663520792351584257

    In 2011 the government started running a new offender behaviour programme... Building Better Relationships (BBR) - replaced the proven IDAP programme... It's now 2023 & despite the programme being run in prisons & by probation continuously for > 10 years there is no evaluation to indicate whether it works... We calculate that 20-35,000 people convicted of domestic abuse have started the programme in the community & many more in prison... If [like sotp] BBR also has a backfire effect leading to more domestic abuse - that's many more victims. Even if it has no effect, should we be punishing people for not completing an irrelevant programme?"

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluating-the-building-better-relationships-programme-feasibility-study-for-an-impact-evaluation-of-proven-reoffending

    "A 2018 HMI Probation report on the work undertaken by Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) with perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse highlighted the need to focus on the quality of that work."

    moj say they have undertaken an "investigation into the feasibility of an evaluation" which suggests "evidence that an impact evaluation is feasible, with sufficient sample sizes to be able to detect an intervention effect (presuming one is present) for BBR."

    ??***Presuming an intervention effect is present***??

    That's not very hopeful is it?

    "...several methodological concerns were also identified that make a reoffending impact evaluation substantially more challenging. These include not being able to account for the quality of programme delivery in the evaluation, which has been shown to be important to reduce reoffending."

    And here's the kicker...

    "Given the time and resources required to deliver evaluations, an impact study would provide limited operational insight until the methodological issues could be resolved."

    Conclusion: moj/hmpps are therefore homogenising programme delivery across the board to address "the methodological issues" :

    "The MoJ intends to replace each team with a generic unit able to deliver courses for all types of offender, including domestic abusers"

    "onehmpps to rule them all, onehmpps to find them, onehmpps to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them; In the Land of Petty France where the shadows lie."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hmm, moj managed to achieve this:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/957855/RESOLVE_report.pdf

    In 2018 moj published:

    https://consult.justice.gov.uk/homeoffice-moj/domestic-abuse-consultation/supporting_documents/Transforming%20the%20response%20to%20domestic%20abuse.pdf

    Case Study: Building Better Relationships
    Building Better Relationships (BBR) is a programme for medium to high-risk adult male perpetrators convicted of an Intimate Partner Violence related offence against a female partner. BBR is accredited by the Correctional Services Accreditation and Advice Panel. It is delivered over 29 group and individual sessions to men serving sentences in prisons or in the community. BBR exists as part of a multi-agency response and other agencies outside of the criminal justice system can provide important support to participants both while they are on the programme and subject to supervision and beyond. BBR aims to reduce the risk of reoffending and promote the safety of current and future partners and children."

    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/offending-behaviour-programmes-and-interventions

    On their own pages moj state:

    "Programme effectiveness and accreditation

    Evidence shows there are common features of effective offending behaviour programmes. Evidence also shows what is ineffective and what we should avoid doing. Programmes that are:

    poorly designed or run
    targeted at the wrong people, and/or
    delivered by poorly trained staff

    This can sometimes increase offending.

    Accredited programmes

    Accreditation gives confidence that a programme:

    is designed based on the best available evidence
    is monitored to make sure it is delivered as intended
    is evaluated to show the outcomes"

    But BBR hasn't been evaluated once in over ten years - nor do moj's own research team think its possible to evaluate it at this time. So now its crunch time they're going to throw ALL programmes in the onehmpps blender to make a programme smoothie, a dish best served cold.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Evaluation of group interventions has always proved problematic. At the beginning of my career group work was run on an ad hoc basis. Anecdotal evidence suggested some were effective. But evaluating the impact over time proved difficult. Well in truth it never happened. More recently psychology had most of its evidence base rubbished when replication studies failed to achieve previous results. Which I guess is why science shouldn’t really be included in the social sciences. Needless to say psychologists are having some trouble accepting that their evidence base is some what flimsy, which brings me to my point. The sex offender programmes have been fraught with difficulties over the years. Antagonistic in the early days more gentle and life affirming towards the end of my time. What didn’t change though was the appreciation that our work doesn’t take place in a vacuum. In fact evidence when it is available shows that a wrap around service is more likely to impact on behaviour. Losing circles of support was, in my view, a bigger mistake than the proposed changes to group work. Sex offenders need consistent support to put change into practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do they. Most ordinary people say they need jail . Solitary would keep them from harming others. Group work programmes won't stop them. What might is not obvious but the public need a real remedy not expensive garble in a classroom .

      Delete
    2. "Evaluation of group interventions has always proved problematic." - True, but its always worth keeping an eye on things:

      https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilydugan/kathryn-hopkins-moj-sotp-john-worboys

      *Everyone* needs consistent support to adjust behaviours & effect meaningful change of any sort: stopping smoking, abstinence from drinking, sexual predation, bullying, improving your park run times, training your dog, learning to drive... and those providing the most intensive forms of support need to be suitably qualified, be provided with quality supervision, have access to continuing professional development & should be enabled to regularly review/evaluate their work with independent observers.

      Delete
    3. Surely 07:11 is not saying that all sex offenders should be locked up and in solitary confinement for ever? If this is not the case then they need to have some form of rehabilitation when in prison before eventual release...therefore both sex offender and domestic abuse perpetrator programmes need to be comprehensively assessed to see whether they work or not?

      Delete
  11. Re 22:15 to add to the earlier post. Replication of existing research (which underpins social science theories) is proving highly problematic. Around 75% of recent studies are failing to replicate earlier findings. This has caused a major crisis for the social sciences. Basically it means that any social research must be treated with caution until it has been replicated at a later date. So in essence significant amounts of research that underpins our understanding of criminal behavior is redundant. Put simply if it can’t be replicated it is useless. Or worse than useless really as it informs decisions about the motivation to change, levels of dangerousness, risk assessments etc etc. So next time someone spouts about evidence based interventions ask them if it has been replicated. So the probation service faces a crisis on two levels. The first is the shambles caused by TR and the second not only is the service in crisis after the TR mess, but it is also facing crisis caused by a crumbling evidence base. Running parallel to this are studies that are starting to question fundamental assumptions about how our brains work. If, as is becoming increasingly likely, free will is a myth then our whole notion of how people operate will be turned on it’s head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one cares for this prison is punitive no need to understand why they do things just punish probations new name.

      Delete
  12. Anyone seen the email on the £1500 payments for “selected civil servant staff in certain grades”? Here we go again….

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A nice way to create a division where none previously existed....

      Delete
    2. It’s everyone except senior managers who are senior civil servants.

      Delete
    3. Doesn’t matter about selected grades. If you’ve received an email saying you’re getting £1500 then they have to pay it. If they don’t then that’s what unions are for.

      Delete
  13. Given probation has been destroyed/diminished and now perhaps really just another Prison Service department should we accept this and ask for Prison Job Evaluation to be applied to our roles? Plus of course same pension as prison staff? Are we missing a trick? PO is graduate entry profession and I’m told scores much higher with that requirement in prison service and FACT prison pensions are far better than probation ( remember probation was not allowed to join civil service pension scheme errrr despite being made to be civil servants). Are we missing just reward for the new reality of our profession?
    PO

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are indeed. Equal work equal pay. On terms of pension in civil service grade rate is an argument for pension rate only 1 claim to argue pension entitlements to succeed we all get it. Don't ask Napo their ignorant leader has already kept silent on his pathetic transfer deal bloody crooked.

      Delete
    2. We in probation should wise up and join the civil service union (PCS) in order to force ourselves into the much better civil service pay grades and pension scheme. See how quick they then try to remove probation from the civil service.

      Delete
    3. Are we missing a trick?

      Yes.

      Every. Single. Time.

      And it will always be so because the probation peg does not fit in the hmpps/moj hole.

      Probation get shafted (again & gain & again & again) so what do probation staff do? They crave recognition in terms of prison service, thereby further diminishing what little remains of 'probation'.

      Delete
  14. Woohoo!! Probation, the poor relation of the civil service and little P in HMPpS has been included for once.

    “Staff in scope of the below announcement are those covered by this year’s Civil Service pay remit guidance (all non-SCS staff working in MoJ HQ, HMCTS, LAA, OPG, CICA), and non-SCS staff in the Probation Service.

    You will have seen that today Simon Case and Alex Chisholm have written to civil servants, announcing an update to this year’s Civil Service pay remit guidance.

    This allows departments to make a one-off (non-consolidated) payment of £1,500 to non-SCS staff. This is in recognition of the professionalism and commitment the Civil Service demonstrates to deliver vital public services.

    I know it’s been a tough time for many with rises in the cost of living. As you know, one of my top priorities is tackling issues around pay and reward. Today’s announcement is in addition to the Civil Service Pay Remit Guidance published in April. As pay is a delegated matter for departments, we will now be able to add this opportunity to our wider pay discussions with trade unions.

    Those discussions will begin as early as next week, and I will keep you updated.

    Thank you as ever for your continued efforts in keeping the public safe and serving justice.

    Antonia Romeo
    Permanent Secretary”

    Any queries in relation to this guidance should be emailed to the Cabinet Office in the first instance:

    Email: civilservicepay@cabinetoffice.gov.uk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing this. Had been trying to find confirmation.

      Delete
    2. Always watch for the carefully worded messages from StrongWhite ("No.2001 Paint Colours by Farrow & Ball - This cool white is both strong by name and strong by nature. ~£50/litre"):

      "we will now be able to add this opportunity to our wider pay discussions with trade unions."

      We will now be able to knock the unions' claims back even further, taking account of the £1500 n/c payment

      Delete
    3. Probation staff may be in scope but I don't see how we possibly receive it because it forms part of the pay negotiations and Probation have already had a pay award for this year.

      Delete
    4. It’s a payment to reflect cost of living because civil servants are so badly paid, even with pay increases. This is the problem with probation staff. You make yourselves unworthy and unimportant. You’ve been told you’re getting £1500 but you’re all talking yourselves out on being eligible. Then when you do receive it you’ll all be acting all grateful when £1500 is peanuts.

      “This allows departments to make a one-off (non-consolidated) payment of £1,500 to non-SCS staff. This is in recognition of the professionalism and commitment the Civil Service demonstrates to deliver vital public services.”

      Delete
    5. All this speculation and I bet not a single one of you have emailed that email, copying in your manager, chief officer and union general secretary. Let them tell you if you’re eligible and expect the answer is yes. Other organisations received a similar payment and everyone demanded it was paid.

      Delete
  15. Just wait for the NAPO GS to claim it as a victory he single handed lay delivered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So former chair of DTV Tees valley gets suspended sentence for fraud but no questions re other senior leaders at DTV who may have had concerns but did not flag them, those same individuals who automatically assumed senior roles in the unified service. What a shit show DTV/Teesside has become, racists promoted and colluders promoted. We may not be perfect in the West Midlands but at a grass roots level, and I think above, we have maintained some integrity!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two-tier justice at its chummy best:

      "Prosecutors said there was ‘concern from the board at the outset’ that Morgan-Williams had ‘forced’ himself into the role, and soon after he contacted a friend who ran a technology company and told him that they would require new ICT infrastructure. He negotiated a 10 per cent commission for himself if a contract was awarded, which it duly was.

      Morgan-Williams then took a £26,966 cut of the £305,000 fee by submitting invoices from a consultancy run by himself that had not been authorised.

      The money was paid into his Coutts bank account.

      Morgan-Williams’ defence counsel urged Judge Howard Crowson not to jail the businessman, who was made OBE in 2008

      This is a man who has succeeded in business.

      Judge: "I am not sending you to prison, though you have acted in a way which merits prison. On the other six counts, I find you not guilty.... you used your position as director to make a profit for yourself... However, you present no danger to the public... It is quite rare to impose a sentence with no further requirements, but you have experienced a high level of punishment already, and feel responsible for the estrangement within your family."

      https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/yorkshire-company-director-and-former-nhs-chairman-and-charity-trustee-sentenced-for-ps27000-fraud-4170221

      "I received assurances from the former Accountable Officer about the controls which he, the officers and Board of the Trust had exercised during their tenure, to ensure compliance with the principles of managing Public Money and in particular in relation to governance, decision-making and financial management. I am content that these assurances were sufficiently accurate and robust to allow me to place reliance on them in discharging my role as Accountable Officer." Mark Taylor, Accountable Officer, 9 February 2015

      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/406690/HC980_Durham_Tees_Valley_Probation_Trust_Report_and_Accounts_2014__web_.pdf

      Delete
    2. Richard Herrman, prosecuting, said the Crown Prosecution Service would offer no evidence in relation to the other charges the defendant was facing.

      He was charged with fraud by abuse of position at charity between April 1, 2012 to January 31, 2015, but that count will no longer go ahead.

      Separate false accounting charges, relating to accounts for the charity he allegedly submitted to the Charities Commission and to a local clergyman between March 2012 and May 2016, will also be dropped, the court heard.
      _____________________________________

      No jail, no further requirements & no suggestion he has to pay back a single penny either.

      Let that be a lesson to the man who has succeeded in business!!!

      Delete
  17. “ racists promoted and colluders promoted. ”

    .. is there anywhere in probation they’re not promoted?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like it the judge frees them all of visiting him in jail with a visiting order in a waiting room like the rest of us. He's already suffered being rich and all. So the poor suffer more for being poor as a motivator for crime all bent so is the judge .

      Delete
  18. The brass neck of these motherfuckers:

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1160111/cosa-pf.pdf

    July 2018: "A very important meeting is taking place in the Ministry of Justice today. The support grant to Circles UK has suddenly been cut – it was only £256,000."

    https://howardleague.org/blog/funding-cut-for-circles-uk-will-have-far-reaching-consequences-for-public-protection/

    "The announcement by HMPPS in March 2018 that funding for Circles would end in September 2018 was unexpected as in the 15 months leading up to this decision, Circles UK had engaged in discussions with HMPPS officials to introduce a nationally commissioned contract for Circles. The consequences of the decision to withdraw funding are far reaching. Locally, this decision is likely to mean that our project will close during 2018-19... The NPS Deputy Director has indicated that she would like Circles provision to continue locally however, in order to realise this, funding will need to be identified from local NPS budgets and, to date, no definite position on this has been agreed."

    It seems funding provision has since been limited to regional arrangements between NPS & PCCs. So not only have MoJ stripped CoSA (Circles of Support & Accountability) of their core funding, but now they're dictating terms & conditions, the eligibility criteria, the referral process, the recording requirements and the information-sharing requirements whilst someone is subject to CoSA.

    onehmpps = passive-aggressive control freaks, bullies & all-round assholes.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11790319/Prison-reform-boss-subjected-husband-15-years-abuse-jailed-four-years.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good circles is full of leadership who shafted us all with tr. Now it's take back not pay back. No more cash because the add nothing to public safety take out work and deliver a crap job. Good riddance.

      Delete
    2. Yes agree but are you specifically telling us something from experience here.

      Delete
  19. These comments re Durham/ tees valley/ Cleveland (why so many names???) are so sad as a mark of decline. In 2001 we had 2 Cleveland POs deliver group work training , as I recall it was Think First training.I was a newly qualified PO in Merseyside and was left in total awe of the trainers, only to learn from more experienced colleagues that they too rated the training as exceptional. That enthusiastic delivery stayed with me for many years so I find it actually quite sad to hear some of these developments regarding Cleveland probation.

    ReplyDelete
  20. From Napo to all members yesterday:-
    Subject: Additional Pay Award Announcement 2022/2023

    Dear Xxxxxx,

    Understandably, we have been receiving enquiries following the statement last week about an additional £1500 payment to staff covered by the Civil Service Pay Remit for the 2022/2023 pay year.

    Napo understands this payment will include Probation Service Staff, with no confirmation of when and how it will be paid.

    The Joint Unions were not consulted about this announcement and are considering our formal response to this news. We can also confirm that despite this development we intend to lobby for additional pay increases for Probation and Cafcass staff for the current and following pay year.

    More information about discussions with senior management will follow once it is available.

    Best Wishes
    Napo HQ

    ReplyDelete